Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Clinic (Amott Road), Camberwell

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of 250 to 300 of my constituents who are concerned about the future of the clinic in Amott road which looks after well women and young children. The clinic is under threat of closure by Camberwell health authority because the fabric of the building is in a rather unsatisfactory state. The petitioners urge that Camberwell health authority should consider carefully before making any changes and that a clinic should be retained in that location.

To lie upon the Table.

New Towns

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I beg to move,
That the draft New Towns (Extinguishment of Libilities) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
The draft order gives effect to the financial reconstruction of four new I own development corporations — Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Telford and Warrington and Runcorn. Powers to carry out the financial reconstruction of the new town corporations were included in the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985, which contained two distinct powers to effect financial reconstruction of the new towns — by the extinguishment of corporations' liabilities to repay loans made by the Secretary of State, and to provide for the suspension of repayments on such loans. The power to extinguish corporations' liabilities under which this order is being made lapses on 30 September 1986.
As I have said, the Order deals with four new town development corporations, but we also propose to implement a financial reconstruction of other new town bodies—the development corporations for Aycliffe and Peterlee and for Washington and the Commission for the New Towns. The financial reconstruction of these bodies will be effected under the power to suspend payments of loans and we expect to bring forward the necessary orders in due course.
In the debates on the 1985 Act there was, I believe, general recognition in all parts of the House of the need to place the corporations on a sound financial footing. The original financial regime of the new towns was established by a Labour Government in 1946 and continued more or less unchanged until the 1985 legislation. Apart from housing, which was subject to the same subsidy arrangements as for local authorities, development corporations' main source of finance for all their activities was long-term fixed interest borrowing from the Secretary of State, who in turn drew loans from the National Loans Fund. This applied both to new investment and to deficits on revenue account which were also capitalised and met by borrowing.
The sum of the liabilities being extinguished in this order is approximately £1,688 million and is thus within the £1,750 million ceiling set in the 1985 Act.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I may be wrong, and I apologise if my hon. Friend will come to this point later in his important speech, but I assume that some assets of the new towns are housing assets. If the debts are to be extinguished, and if, as we all hope, some of the houses will later be purchased by the sitting tenants, what will happen to the money that is so released? Will it come back to the Exchequer to make up the debt from which we are releasing the new towns?

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend raises a good point on which I can reassure him.
The sum that I have mentioned is admittedly large, and it could well be asked why it is necessary to write that off. However, it was always envisaged that the corporations' revenue deficits would continue for the early years of


development, but that in due course they would be able to achieve break-even and be in a position to redeem the borrowing.
Most of the first generation of new towns achieved that. They were Basildon, Harlow in Essex, Bracknell in Berkshire, Crawley in West Sussex, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City. There were also the new towns at Corby, Aycliffe and Peterlee.
Whereas those corporations benefited from the boom of the 1950s and early 1960s, the second and third generation new towns developed against a background of growing economic difficulties in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Was the money that the Government now want to write off spent primarily on infrastructure by the new towns in years gone by?

Mr. Tracey: That was an important part of the construction of the new towns but, as I have explained, under the legislation of 1946, this was the major method of financing the new towns. I covered that point earlier and I am now explaining the further developments and why we now believe that we must extinguish the liabilities.
The second generation towns were Runcorn in Cheshire, Skelmersdale in Yorkshire, Washington in Tyne and Wear, and Redditch and Dawley, which is now called Telford, in Shropshire. The third generation new towns are perhaps better known — Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Northampton, Warrington in Cheshire, and the central Lancashire new town.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend mentioned Northampton which woke me up as I was dozing off.
This is a complex and important subject and, as the debate unwinds, there is a lot of information that some of us would be interested to have. It would be wrong to expect my hon. Friend to have the information at the moment, but perhaps it could be provided for him before the debate is concluded. One thing that would be of interest to myself and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is the amount of money that we are writing off that is attributable to housing assets and the interest arising from the establishment of those housing assets in the first place, and I hope that that information can be found.

Mr. Tracey: I take good note of what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he will be developing that point and posing further questions as the debate goes on. We shall seek to give him the answers that he wants.
The task facing the second and third generation towns was in many respects fairly onerous. For example, at Telford more than a quarter of the designated areas was derelict at the beginning of the operation. There was also a substantial reclamation task at Warrington, while at Milton Keynes the scale of infrastructure required was larger than anything which had previously been undertaken because of the nature of the site on which Milton Keynes is being constructed.
High rates of interest and low economic growth over the period contributed to a situation in which the deficits of the second and third generation towns spiralled inevitably upwards. Thus a number of factors worsened the financial position of the new town corporations.

Mr. William Cash: I happen to be a member of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust which has done a great deal to improve and enhance Telford's environment. I live near to Telford and I would not want any impression to be gained—I hope that my hon. Friend is not giving the impression—that there is a state of dereliction in that area. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Many would regard that area as one of the most outstandingly beautiful parts of this great British isle.

Mr. Tracey: I proceed quickly to deny that I am in any way suggesting that the state of dereliction which may have been there at the beginning has remained. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that has been done in the Telford area were there have been great environmental benefits. My hon. Friend has noted, in an articulate way, some of them. I certainly do not want to say that there is a problem at present as great as there was when the work on the new town began.
In November 1982 the then Minister for Housing and Construction, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley), explained that legislation would be needed to deal with the problem. As an interim measure, the Finance Act 1983 introduced a power to suspend repayments on some new town debts until 30 September this year. The order, under the powers taken in the 1985 Act, provides a long-term solution which will give the four corporations a realistic debt structure so that they are able to service and repay their debts in due course.
The financial reconstruction proposals embodied in the order have been formulated by reference to projections of income and expenditure over the next 20 years. This exercise has been carried out with the co-operation of the corporations and the results have been analysed by consultants commissioned by the Department of the Environment.
In parallel with the financial reconstruction, we are introducing other measures which should improve the financial regime which the new towns operate. New towns' capital investment in the provision of roads, which is the major item of expenditure on which there is no direct return to them will in future be eligible for grant under a provision introduced in the 1985 Act. We are also in the process of introducing an improved system of corporate planning which will provide the focus for discussion of the corporations' activities and resource allocation. Some changes will be introduced to the form of the corporations' published accounts to make them more informative and these will include a requirement for the corporations to report on their progress towards achieving cumulative break-even. Taken together, these measures will provide a sound financial basis for the corporations during the remaining period of their lives as they complete their development programmes. An essential element of this is the financial reconstruction of the corporations to establish a capital structure which they will be capable of servicing. If the house approves this order today, this will be achieved.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend appears to be coming to the end of his speech. I apologise for interrupting again. I accept that we are writing off certain debts, but the new towns will still own assets. As the years unfold, how much do the Government expect to get back? How much will the taxpayer get back from the new towns?

Mr. Tracey: The aim is to conduct the exercise in the most efficient way. I cannot give my hon. Friend a figure, but we believe that by the extinguishment of liabilities and by building from a sound base we shall achieve a sound financial basis.

Mr. Ian Gow: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point and moves on to the second part of his speech, will he kindly tell the House to what extent he has studied reports produced by the development corporations for the year ended 31 March 1985? These are the most recent reports available in the Vote Office. My hon. Friend knows that.
I refer my hon. Friend to the pictures on page 210. I am grateful to the Opposition for following what I am saying with such care. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has before him a copy of the report. The assiduous spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has a copy. Perhaps I should allow my hon. Friend time to obtain a copy of the pictures. Perhaps his private secretary, or one of my hon. Friends, can assist him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is not making a speech. This is supposed to be an intervention.

Mr. Gow: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring my hon. Friend and the official Opposition spokesman to some pictures. I do not know whether you have a copy, but they appear on page 210. One picture is of Milton Keynes' Texas Homecare store. Is that store and the loan that applied to it included in the order?

Mr. Tracey: I cannot answer that question at the moment, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me I shall seek the information.
I was about to conclude my speech. We believe that the essential element is the financial reconstruction to establish a capital structure which the corporations will be capable of servicing. If the House approves the order, this will be achieved.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I welcome the order, but I am slightly disappointed at the way in which it was introduced. I had hoped for more detail in my hon. Friend's explanation. My concern is about Telford in my constituency. About £440 million of the capital given to that new town over the years is to be extinguished. I am shocked and surprised at the complete lack of details about the loans involved in the statutory instrument.
New town corporations should be more receptive to people's wishes and to the views of our constituents. They should tell people exactly what is happening. New towns should open their board room doors so that the public can see what is happening. It would be possible to deal with the commercial confidentiality problems which apply to new town corporations as they do to local authorities. New towns such as Telford are happy to provide publicity on matter about which they want the public to know, but that does not reveal the whole picture.
I am unable to find out what the Telford new town corporation is debating, but I believe that the board papers were available to my Labour predecessor. The Labour-controlled local district and county council chief

executives are furnished with the information, so they know exactly what is happening and according to Lord Northfield, the new town corporation chairman, they are able to brief their members. It is extraordinary that a new town corporation should keep a Member of Parliament in the dark but advise officers of the local councils. After all,. new town corporations are Government-supported bodies.
I hope that the Government will persuade the corporations to be more forthcoming in the advice and information that they pass on to Members of Parliament. Board members have asked for me to be furnished with papers, but that request has been refused by the chairman of the corporation.

Mr. Cash: Were any reasons given for the information not being disclosed? My constituency is next to my hon. Friend's constituency, and I have an interst since many of my constituents work in Telford.

Mr. Hawksley: I have not been given a satisfactory explanation. Lord Northfield told me that he had taken advice from the Department before refusing my request for the papers.

Mr. Gow: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it is not necessary to have a constituency which abuts his own to take a keen interest in this matter. He will find if he studies the order that the powers exist as a result of the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985, and some of the members of the Committee which considered that measure did not have new towns in their constituencies.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact, which I admit had slipped my mind.
I turned to the draft statutory instrument with hopes that I would be able to ascertain exactly what the Telford development corporation had been doing with the large sum that we shall write off today. Unfortunately, the order provided no clues. We are asked in respect of all four new towns to accept the writing-off of nearly £1,750 million without one word about what the money has been spent on. I was so worried that last week I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I asked him whether he would give details of each of the advances from T1 to T409, which appear in the order. I thought that that would provide helpful information for the House to have when debating this important issue. I received a reply on Wednesday 16 July 1986. The written answer stated:
Long-term loans from the Secretary of State have been the principal source of finance for the new towns programme. Individual loans cannot be linked to specific activities or items of expenditure."—[Official Report, 16 July 1986.]
That is an extraordinary answer.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend think it possible that some of the money to which he has referred went into the fine new public house that is known as Quenchers, or the sophisticated night club and disco complex that is called Cascades? We are told the Cascades has lost no time in becoming the local "Talk of the Town".

Mr. Hawksley: I should declare an interest because I was involved in the opening of one of those premises. There are good facilities within my constituency. The town centre is currently owned by the development corporation and we may well find that some of the money has gone that way. It is frightening that an answer to a parliamentary


question fails to list the items of expenditure. The House will be aware that T399 is one item of expenditure of £27 million, and presumably the Department passed that sum over Telford development corporation. I find it frightening that the answer to my question does not tell us what the items of expenditure were.
I must assume that the items that we are debating, which are listed in the order, cover all the expenditures of the Telford development corporation. They seem to appear as half-year expenditure groups, and we must assume that the expenditure in the new town has come from these funds. I hope that I shall be in order when I try to deal with some items of the expenditure which I believe need discussion.
When I was elected the hon. Member of Parliament for The Wrekin in 1979 I said in my maiden speech that I believed that the new town corporation should be supported by the Government. I said also that I believed that the Government could and would give the help that was needed. I never dreamt that the Government would give so much help and do so much for the area. The opposition in this place and at local level in the district council is The Wrekin deride on many occasions the Government's expenditure plans, but I believe that this instrument puts to rest the charge that the Government are not spending the money that should be expended in the area.
When my hon. Friend the Minister introduced the order he talked about the state of Telford when the corporation was set up. There were old quarries and old collieries. There was much reclamation to be done. Although it has not been finished yet, much has been done. I welcome the expenditure that has allowed that to happen.
It should be remembered that in 1979 Telford had no hospital and no motorway. Telford was in a worse position than previously because of the closure of the Cosford hospital. There was no accident or emergency cover in the east of the county. There were no motorway connections to the M6, which all the industrialists in the area told us were essential. We went into a third inquiry because the previous Labour Government kept changing their mind. We had no development status and there was no station in central Telford.
What is the position now? Thanks, presumably, to some of the money that we are talking about, we shall have a new hospital. That hospital is almost built. I suppose that the roads approaching it have been financed by the new town's money. The M54 is open and it is bringing jobs to the area. The Government have given the area intermediate status, which gives it money from Europe as well as from our Exchequer. We have an enterprise zone and a station has been built and opened. This is all good news.
Jobs are being created in the town. Although we have an unacceptable level of unemployment at 21 per cent., 3,000 jobs have been created in the past year within the new town of Telford, thanks to the Government's help. We have international firms and many of them have come to the area with Government money. These include Maxell, Ricco and Tutung. Local companies such as Brintons and Blockleys have been expanding quickly. This has happened in Telford because of the facilities that have been provided by the new town corporation.
The Government have given every support for which we could possibly ask and I am upset that the creation of 3,000 extra jobs has been hailed by certain Socialist councillors as the 'sham of Telford'. I welcome an additional 3,000 jobs. It reflects great credit on Telford that at this time it has been able to create that number of jobs, even with Government help.
I address myself to a couple of the outstanding issues that will arise if we pass the order. One has been mentioned already by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Housing transfer is an important issue in Telford. The demise of the corporation is envisaged in the early 1990s and we are talking of housing being transferred to housing associations, the district councils or to trusts. I welcome the decision to allow tenants to have their views listened to and I want to know when the Government will ask for their views. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that housing may be transferred legally to authorities other than district councils. I know that some district councils claim that that cannot happen and that they must have first option. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to clarify the position.
To repeat the question my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North asked, what will happen to the proceeds that are received as a result writing off these assets today? I wish to put on record my appreciation of the hard work that the chairman of the corporation, Lord Northfield, carries out on behalf of the new town. He spends money wisely and takes a great personal interest in every housing scheme. I have in mind especially the Admaston scheme. The corporation encouraged and persuaded a developer to design houses that would be appropriate for that area, which is one of outstanding beauty. Lord Northfield was personally and closely involved with the choice of the builder and the way in which a decision was arrived at. The land did not go to the highest bidder. It went instead to the one which, it was thought, would produce the right sort of development.

Mr. Gow: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has had with Lord Northfield on this important matter? If Lord Northfield were a Member of this place instead of the other place, would he vote for the order?

Mr. Hawksley: I assume that my hon. Friend is correct. I have not discussed the order with the noble Lord. I believe that he would welcome the proposals. I know of his great interest in housing. The matter that creates, great concern in Telford. As the House knows, the noble Lord is the paid chairman of Consortium Development, which is a consortium of building companies such as Barretts, Wimpey, Tarmac, Brosely and Christian Salvesen. My constituents are worried that there may be a conflict of interest in his chairmanship of the new town corporation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the order. He must not stray as wide as he is doing at the moment.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that warning. Respecting your decision, I wonder whether the payment of the chairman and the expenditure and the policies that he implements in the corporation have not something to do with the items of expenditure that we are writing off and about which we have been told so little. The Government should advise us whether they are happy


that the chairman of their corporation, which is allocated a large sum of money, has a conflict of interest as chairman of a consortium that has interests in the town. That is the important point, because nearly all those building companies do work in Telford.
I gather that there is a precedent. When the Docklands board was set up, it had a chairman who was involved in housing. It was decided that his companies could not operate in Docklands. Will the same happen in Telford? Is the land sold to private builders to be excluded from companies in the consortium of which the noble Lord is chairman? We want to know the answer to that important point. If we cannot solve this conflict to the satisfaction of my constituents and many builders in the area who are not members of the consortium of which his Lordship is chairman, his Lordship may have to resign, or he may have to be replaced.

Mr. Gow: In a most interesting speech, my hon. Friend has referred to the advances to the Telford development corporation. I have studied the expenditure closely, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) has. Will my hon. Friend direct his formidable intellect to the final line of page 9 of the order, which has puzzled my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary as it has puzzled me. What has happened to the sum of £373·26, which is the difference between the sum in the first column and the sum in the second column? Will my hon. Friend address himself to that problem? He has not got round to doing so.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I am sure that the Minister heard the question. I hope that, whith the advice of his civil servants, he will be able to answer that in reply. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. It shows the lack of information that we are receiving on this important order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke of his personal involvement with the Ironbridge Gorge Museum. That museum was set up with finance from the corporation. It was a Museum of Europe a few years ago. It is the leading tourist attraction in Shropshire. It is doing a good job for the area. If we are to write off loans, we should be told what the Government believe should happen to the sites of the museum that are currently owned by the Telford development corporation. We should be interested to know whether the Government intend to give continued support to the museum to ensure that it has the resources it needs and which are now channelled through the new town corporation of Telford. We must support and welcome the museum and its development, because it has an important part to play within the ambit of the Telford development corporation.
I turn to a further item of expenditure in the order. As I do not have the details, I am unable to pinpoint the number of the item. It concerns the purchase, in the late 1960s, of land at Nedge Hill. That involves a scandal of frightening proportions. I believe that the corporation has wasted £500,000 of public money, and that it is hiding that fact. The corporation purchased the land, with vacant possession, with money that was given in the late 1960s for the purchase. The corporation then offered to let the land back to the farmer.
The corporation has found, now that it wants the land back, that instead of giving a 364-day licence, it gave a full agricultural tenancy. The corporation is now having to

pay anything up to £500,000 to get its own land back. In view of the fact that the corporation bought the land with vacant possession, I believe the public would view the expenditure of an extra £500,000 ill spent.
I believe that there should be an inquiry by Ministers into the reason why the expenditure is necessary. It may be, as the corporation has implied, that the last Labour Government, as a policy decision, insisted that the land was let back to the former owner. On the other hand, it may be that the officers of the corporation made a mistake when they issued the licence for an agricultural tenancy. In any case it is scandalous that £500,000 could have been wasted.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Perhaps my hon. Friend would consider the importance of getting the matter that he has raised — the purchase of land for £500,000 — cleared up following the extinguishment of liabilities and the handing over to the corporation and the district council. In Skelmersdale, we found that many projects that needed to be sorted ur were left over. I urge my hon. Friend to consider, when he advises the local development corporation what to do, to ensure that all the loose ends are tied up so that the problems will not continue into the future, as was the case in the north-west.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. It is essential that the matter be sorted out quickly. The corporation wants the land for its own use. However, a similar position may apply in respect of other land in the Telford area. The public should be told whether the corporation has put other land that it bought with vacant possession under an agricultural tenancy that it must buy back when it wants to use the site.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether it is proper to point out at this stage that, in this important debate about new towns, apart from the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not intervene. It has nothing to do with the order before us.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Until the last election I represented the Deans and Knightsridge area of the new town of Livingston. As I understand it, I would be ruled out of order if I raised the problems of Livingston in this debate.

Mr. Hind: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know very well that they do not have to represent a new town in order to take part in a debate or be interested in what goes on in the House.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must not pursue this matter because it is out of order.

Mr. Hind: It is a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are a number of hon. Members present who do not represent the new towns which are listed in the order but who represent other new towns. Would it be proper to raise the problems that occur in those other new towns that are similar to the problems that will be created in the new towns listed in the order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to give advice to the House. If an hon. Member is out of order, I shall say so. I shall decide when an hon. Member is speaking whether he is in or out of order.

Mr. Hawksley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I remind the House that I began by praising the Government for their support for Telford. They are not given, locally or nationally, the credit that is deserved for the size of the expenditure on all the new towns, especially on Telford.
The Telford development corporation built an ice skating rink in the Telford town cenre. Many of my constituents welcomed that project. But the corporation gave that rink away—it would probably claim that it was sold—to the Wrekin district council for £1 towards the cost of building the rink. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will clarify how the budgeting was done in charging for that item. I wonder whether this is one of those items that are being written off.
It is interesting that The Wreckin district council, having taken over the rink for £1 and having said that it would break even on running costs, succeeded in the first year in incurring a loss of amost £200,000. That is not very good. I know that the district council is aware of the problems and is trying to correct them. Credit must be given to the Government, the TDC and Ministers for giving Telford an ice skating rink for £1. My electors appreciate that. Credit should go where it belongs—to the Government for having provided those resources.

Mr. Gow: Will my hon. Friend please direct his mind to the specific problems revealed between pages 7 and 14 of the order? Has he noticed that it is the Telford development corporation, not the development coroporation of any of my hon. Friends, which has the largest number of items—419? Will my hon. Friend explain how we are supposed to know to which item each number relates? In my respectful submission, we cannot debate this matter properly unless we know to which items those numbers relate. Can my hon. Friend tell me one of those 419 items that relates to a specific project?

Mr. Hawksley: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. I cannot give one item with a specific expenditure against it.

Mr. Gow: Not even one?

Mr. Hawksley: Not even one. The reason is, to quote from the parliamentary answer to one of my questions,
Individual loans cannot be linked to specific activities or items of expenditure."—[Official Report, 16 July 1986.]
It is frightening that in this document there is a large number of items, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) rightly highlights, which are attributable to Telford, yet we do not know what any of them are. I hope that we shall be enlightened before the end of the debate as to the exact purpose of the loans that we are asked to write off.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley). There are 419 items before the House which relate to my hon. Friend's new town, but he cannot identify one project that is related to an individual loan. Do you not think that a Treasury Minister or possibly my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General should be present to help us in these serious matters?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has been a Member for a long time and he knows very well that the presence of Ministers is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hawksley: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly disappointed because I had hoped that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne would help the House in our proceedings on the order. I hope that we shall be advised of the details of these items of expenditure. Because we are talking of such large sums, I hope that it is possible for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to find out what at least some of the items are. I assume that the items to which I have referred in the corporation's expenditure are hidden away somewhere in those figures. I assume that I am right, because you have not yet ruled me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for dealing with the expenditure on these items.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not tempt me.

Mr. Hawksley: Thank you for that second warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion to allow my hon. Friends who represent other new towns to speak of the experiences of their corporations. It is important that we put on the record the amounts that the Government have put in to the new town corporations. I hope that the questions of vacant land, of Lord Northfield's chairmanship of the Telford development corporation and of the items of expenditure listed in the order will be clarified. Provided we are given clarification that I consider to be satisfactory I shall be only too happy to support the order.

Mr. Roland Boyes: It may be helpful if I say a few words at this time.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked me whether the order should be discussed upstairs or on the Floor of the House, I advised my hon. Friend, who with others made the final decision, that it should be taken on the Floor of the House to give those hon. Members who live in, represent or are interested in the new towns an opportunity to take part in this debate in public and, as the Under-Secretary of State has done, to make constructive criticism and offer helpful suggestions and even praise.
In future I shall hesitate long before making such a recommendation if Conservative Members abuse it by talking at great length with the single objective of preventing a second Adjournment debate.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise other hon. Members before they have even spoken, especially those who represent new towns and therefore have a particular interest in the order? I beg you to make a ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the preamble of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I am grateful for hon. Members' great interest in what is in order and what is not, but that is really a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Boyes: I have not as yet made any criticism of any individual Conservative Member. I am saying merely that I hope that my recommendation is not abused by


Conservative Members speaking at great length with the objective, which is now well known to the House, of preventing a second Adjournment debate.

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Boyes: As hon. Members know full well, I am one of the great "givers away" in debates, whether I am on the Back Bench or at the Dispatch Box, but I intend to give no assistance to those who want unnecessarily to prolong the debate.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) to make dire allegations about hon. Members without giving way and responding to the legitimate points that they might wish to make? This is Parliament at its worst.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that whether an hon. Member gives way or not is a matter for him.

Mr. Boyes: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) again suggests that I am accusing Tory Members of something. I am merely suggesting that I hope they will not abuse my decision on this occasion.
This is an extremely short order, as is the explanatory note, but I shall argue that it has some important political significance. As the Minister said, the objective of the order is to extinguish, on 1 September 1986, liabilities in respect of certain advances made by the Secretary of State to the development corporations of Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Telford and Warrington and Runcorn. In section 62A of the New Towns Act 1981 there is a limit to which the liability can be extinguished, but the figure of approximately £1·7 billion is well within that limit.
As I have said, this debate is of interest to people regardless of whether they represent or live in a new town. My experience of new towns is extremely wide. I have lived in Peterlee in the north-east of England for 25 years and represented it at local authority level. I now represent the new town of Washington, having represented it from 1979 to 1984 in the European Parliament. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware that the new town movement is very important. When a student ccomes to write the history of the new towns, he or she will note the significant contribution that they have made to all aspects of our lives. They are one of the great post-war experiments carried out by many, at great risk. There is no doubt that the risk has been well worth while and that the new town movement is undoubtedly highly successful.
The new town movement is a great tribute to Lewis Silkin, the father of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who was the great architect and innovator of the new town movement. He had the foresight to see that housing, economics and other problems would arise in the future and, most importantly and significantly, he was able to find a solution to those perceived problems. His son, the right hon. Member for Deptford, in a distinguished career in the House, has continued his father's aspirations.
The director of the Town and Country Planning Association agrees with the point that I have made. He wrote in Town and Country Planning in October 1985:
I believe it amply confirms that the new towns' programme represents one of the greatest achievements of post-war planning.
It is because of the success of the jobs started by many corporations but which have not yet been finished that I am resentful of the Government's policies. The Government are putting their fingers, sticky with the glue of privatisation, into areas where they have no right to go, sometimes less openly than others. Opposition Members and others outside the Chamber have demonstrated on many occasions that sometimes their privatisation plans are carried out overtly and sometimes covertly. I shall make a few remarks about that, because the order is directly related to those privatisation plans. Privatisation of new towns may make sense in the extremely narrow ideoligical thoughts of the Government, but it makes little sense politically, economically, financially or socially for many others.
Conservative Members have already referred in speeches and interventions to economic development. The new towns have played a vital role in the generation of jobs. In the process, they have demanded billions of pounds of public investment in town centres, house building, factory site preparation and job promotion. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House can question the fact that the experiment has proved to be worthwhile and that the investment is important for those who chose to live in the new towns. That investment has also been of great help to people who live in the areas surrounding new towns. In areas of high unemployment, new towns have played a particularly important role. Although the new town that I represent and the one in which I live are not the subject of this debate, they have been essential in promoting, obtaining and protecting jobs.
No one on either side of the House believes that the new towns, run by development corporations, or by quangos with representatives appointed by the Secretary of State, should last for ever. There will come a time when the new towns will be considered to have completed their useful lives and their assets will have to be disposed of. What is of concern is that the Government appear to be hell-bent on winding up the new towns without considering their role within the region in which they exist. In particular, they are ignoring their relationship to industrial decline and the related high unemployment levels. Although those aspects are not the main subject of the debate today, they will have to be the subject of a debate in the near future.
This debate is concerned with the disposal of assets—how, and to whom. I have listened with great interest to the intervention of Conservative Members who have been trying to get more details about what this mass of figures represents. Clearly, judging by the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, they have found the order extremely interesting — I cannot say enlightening—reading.
The reports of the four new towns under discussion today, Peterborough, Milton Keynes, Warrington and Runcorn and Telford are, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pointed out, referred to in the "Reports of the Development Corporations," dated 31 March 1985 and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, that is the latest available annual report. We expect the next one a little later in the year.
The board of each new town has expressed a desire, in its annual report, to carry on with the work that it is doing. The chairmen especially want to complete the job aspect of the new towns. I shall consider one comment from the remarks of the chairmen of the four boards.
Peterborough, which has a population of 128,000, was designated as a new town in 1967. The chairman in his annual report said:
To enhance the attractions of Peterborough — and underpin this success—more building and infrastructure are required. But for the most part, the need is to keep together, for as long as necessary, the special expertise that an established development corporation provides to promote enterprise and foster further growth.
The chairman of Milton Keynes with a population of 122,000, which was first designated as a new town in 1967, said:
It is our emphatic view that the city should be completed with the care and attention to balance so necessary for a 'greenfield' site and that the skills of the Corporation are essential to that task. The benefits of Milton Keynes to the region and the nation, as well as to the local inhabitants, must be fully realised.
As hon. Members are well aware, Warrington and Runcorn is a combined development corporation. Warrington development corporation was designated in 1968, and Runcorn in 1964. The population at the latest known figures, was about 210,000. In his annual report, the chairman of the board said:
A great deal undoubtedly remains to be done, if the continued development of the two New Towns and the satisfactory termination of the Corporation's role in the process are to be accomplished in parallel and with equal success.
The fourth new town under consideration is Telford, to which the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) addressed his remarks. It has a population of about 109,000. As has been correctly stated, it was originally designated as Dawley new town in 1963. In the 22nd annual report of the Telford development corporation, the chairman said:
My regret is that the constraints of government policies on the new towns emphasise less what could be achieved than how little time there is to do something worthwhile. It is perhaps even more regrettable that so successful an instrument of national policy should be seen as having no further role in the revival of the economic fortunes of other parts of the United Kingdom.
Whether this is the correct time to be winding up development corporations is an important matter for debate. On the other hand, each of the remarks that I have chosen from the annual reports shows that each development corporation is putting much energy, expertise, money and cash into the promotion and development of jobs. The Government's policy has led to massive unemployment, and each of those corporations sees the continuation of its existence as important in the battle to create jobs throughout the nation.
Although many people would say that the development corporations have been successful to date, there are still many problems to be solved. I note that some hon. Members in the Chamber were present at the meeting with representatives of the Association of District Councils new towns committee earlier this week. Problems were raised which will need to be discussed at great length in the House in future. Some of the problems raised related to housing assets. There was quite a good discussion about whether local authorities should be offered the houses, and whether housing associations or co-operatives should run groups of the houses. The debate was on whether the local authority should have an automatic right, or whether tenants should be consulted as to their desires about the

houses in which they live. That is a vital debate, which will have to be concluded. It is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
One of the aspects of the Government's privatisation programme is to sell off the town centres in the new towns. As a former member of a local authority, I am not suggesting for one moment that the local authorities should take over and run town centres, but I believe, as do many of my collagues in local authorities, that at least the local authority should have some say in how the town centres in the new towns are disposed of.
When assets are sold, what happens to the proceeds? Surely some of the proceeds, especially in areas of high unemployment, should go to the local authorities. Surely it is not unreasonable for the local authority to have a share in something that it has been instrumental in helping to develop. The director of the Town and Country Planning Association shares that view and said in an article in The Guardian by the journalist John Cunningham on 10 April 1985:
The basic idea is that the enhanced values created by the development corporations on the community's behalf should be ploughed back. It was the initial investment of the taxpayer which set them off.
If those assets went back to the local authority, the product of the assets would stay fairly and squarely in that area, where the development corporation is.
What is the order all about? Many interventions were made by Conservative Members to the Minister about that. The purpose of the order is to extinguish certain liabilities of the development corporations that are under discussion. The power to make the order was provided by section 62A of the New Towns Act 1981, which was inserted by section 8(1) of the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne, the then Minister for Housing and Construction, led for the Government when the Bill was going through the House. Some of my colleagues and I asked particularly about what is now section 8, and its consequences. To clarify the point, I shall quote from section 62A of the New Towns Act. It says:


"(1) The Secretary of State may, with the Treasury's consent, by order extinguish to such extent as may be specified in the order any liabilities of a development corporation in respect of advances made by him to the corporation under section 58(1) of the corresponding provisions of the 1946 Act or the 1965 Act.
(2) The aggregate amount of liabilities extinguished by order under this section shall not exceed £1·750."

If Conservative Members have studied the new towns annual reports for the year ending 31 March 1985, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne clearly has, they will have seen the financial statements for each of the development corporations. For those who are following closely, I refer to page 121 dealing with Milton Keynes development corporation's annual report, although a similiar paragraph is inserted in each of the new town's reports. The paragraph is headed, "Suspended Loans" and states:
The Government has announced that it intends to take measures to produce a permanent solution to the problem of the substantial and growing revenue deficits of certain development corporations.
We are discussing that this morning.
The New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill was debated on 20 November 1984. The then Minister for Housing and Construction, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, explained why the provision was necessary. He said:


clause 8 gives to the Secretary of State power to write off sufficient debt to give a capital structure which is capable of being serviced by the assets which the corporations hold."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 165.]
That is to say that the Government wanted to achieve the objective of reaching a financial break-even point. That argument is put forward to justify the writing-off of debts and liabilities of new towns to enable further growth and expansion, and especially to attract industry and jobs as part of the immediate sub-region development.
However, other than ideological dogma—a perpetual drive fuelled by monetarist policies — it is difficult to find a justification for what the Government are doing. When the Labour party forms the next Government it should take a leaf out of the Conservative book and introduce mechanisms to write off some of the massive debts that local authorities face as a consequence of many years of Conservative Government.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Boyes: I shall certainly not give way to that hon. Member.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyes: I am certainly not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Local authorities suffer the same long-term debt problem as new towns, because they have had to take out loans over a 60-year period—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret having to raise a point of order, but the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has said to every Labour local authority in the land, "Spend as much as you like. When we come into power, if we come into power, we will pay"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He knows very well that that is a matter for debate and not a point of order for the Chair. He is certainly not raising a point of order.

Mr. Boyes: The nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Northampton, North absolutely justifies my not giving way to him. What he said about me was quite incorrect and not worth an intervention. I shall not join in the charade in which some Conservative Members are hoping to play a part later this morning. To save hon. Members rising, I say now that I shall not give way—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend please stop banging the Dispatch Box, as he might destroy it?

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend is worried that I might destroy the Dispatch Box because he wants to speak from it later this morning.

Mr. Sheerman: No, it is being reserved for the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who will be on the Opposition Benches in the near future.

Mr. Boyes: I fear that my hon. Friend's interventions are encouraging Conservative Members.
What was the motivation behind section 8? The hon. Member for Eastbourne said in the debate on 20 November 1984:
If investment is needed, it will be met from receipts. The surplus will be used to redeem debt. In this way, the assets of

the new towns will be realised as quickly as practicable for the benefit of the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 166.]
There is a contradiction in terms there. It is all part and parcel of the Government's privatisation programme. The new towns are being privatised and the extinguishment of liabilities is an essential and necessary element in the process to make them more attractive to purchasers.
That is a well-known technique. As my hon. Friends know, I have been involved in the anti-water privatisation campaign. There is an interesting comparison here, as the Government are threatening to write-off £5 billion debts of water authorities, forcing them to make price increases to make abnormal profits. The Northumbria water authority has increased its profits sevenfold, and the Thames water authority, on an increased turnover of £46 million, has made an increased profit of £45 million.
Section 8 is part and parcel of the Government's programme to privatise new towns. Hon. Members should be aware that the reason for the liabilities being written-off is to make the new towns more attractive to purchasers.
If I may digress for a moment on the question of water authorities and tell the House what Mr. Watts, the chairman of the Thames water authority, said yesterday—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is digressing and he must address himself to the order.

Mr. Boyes: I am trying to establish a point that has not been made by any Conservative Member — the real intention behind the writing-off of new town liabilities.
During the latter stages of the 1970 to 1974 Conservative Government, the third generation new towns faced problems caused by rising interest rates and rising inflation. However, the power in section 8 was introduced for quite different reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, section 8 was clearly designed
to whet the appetite of the private profit motive." — [Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 173.]
The fact that this order is to do with privatisation is echoed in an article by John Cunningham in The Guardian on 10 April 1985 and by Gareth David in The Observer on 13 October 1985. John Cunningham wrote:
Compared with the furore over the privatisation of the aerospace, oil and telecommunications industries, the Government's disposal of the substantial national assets represented by the new towns is proceeding almost by stealth.
Gareth David wrote:
one equally far-reaching privatisation exercise has been taking place almost unnoticed. Since 1979 the Commission for the New Towns has been selling off the assets of the 8 towns it inherited when their respective development corporations completed their work. By the end of March 1985, it had raised some £317 million.
On 10 June 1986 the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he would
indicate the main achievements of Her Majesty's Government with respect to urban and new town affairs in the last seven years.
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction replied:
The Government's policy is to bring the programme to a successful conclusion with the maximum possible involvement of the private sector.
He said that an important achievement was


The realisation since 1979 of about £1·25 billion from the sale of assets (approximately £850 million from sales of industrial and commercial property and approximately £450 million from sales of dwellings and housing land)."—[Official Report, 10 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 115–17.]
That represents a typical Government objective. Irrespective of the needs of the people and the local authorities, cash must be raised by selling assets to the private sector. Assets can be sold only once, and clearly the best parts go first. It is what Lord Macmillan described as selling off the family silver. It has created an imbalance in the economics of the new towns.
In simple terms, this order means that the four new towns — Milton Keynes, Warrington and Runcorn, Telford and Peterborough—will have enough of their debts written-off so that income from assets will balance costs. For the past three years, financially, time has been frozen. However, the premature forced selling of assets to the private sector meant that a break-even point could not be reached, so a calculation was made of how much debt needed to be written-off to balance the books.
If the objective had been financial manipulation to deal with losses related to long-term borrowing agreements with the Treasury, that would have been a logical move with which the Opposition could agree. There is little point in accumulating debt that can never be repaid. However, that was not the reason. The reason for the write-off is to make assets more attractive to private investors but, as more and more assets are sold, servicing the accumulated debts becomes more difficult and eventually impossible. Clearly the most valuable assets, producing the most income, are sold first, and the assets left cannot produce enough income to pay off the interest on the debts. That makes what is left behind less attractive to the private sector and means that fewer liabilities are extinguished.
The Minister may talk about financial reconstruction, but we in the Labour party are well aware that the Government's real objective is to move further down the road towards privatisation. They are making the new towns that have been developed over many years attractive to private investors in order to line the pockets of their friends in the City.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

College of the Air

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement about the establishment of the College of the Air.
In 1981 my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) announced the introduction and the formation of Open Tech. Open Tech was not a new institution but a series of programmes sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission designed to introduce new courses of technician training and to improve the accessibility of these courses by the preparation and the use of distance learning techniques. Distance learning enables people to undertake studies in particular subjects using books, other printed material, sound tape and video in their own homes or offices at their own speed and at a time of their choosing.
Since then we have invested some £45 million in Open Tech, enabling some 50,000 students to obtain new skills and qualifications. These programmes were often prepared in conjunction with private industry. Firms, such as Austin Rover, Lucas and ICI, among others, have taken part in the preparation of training programmes and helped in the accumulation of experience and knowledge in this modern method of training. Today the United Kingdom has taken a leading position in this field.
We now propose to build on these developments by assisting with the creation of an open college, the College of the Air. Our aim is to enlist the full contribution of radio and television to support and deliver open learning courses in all areas of vocational competence. The college will be able to assess needs and arrange, co-ordinate and promote courses. It will work through other organisations to ensure student enrolment, tutor support, work assessment and testing according to the individual requirements of the students.
We plan that the college should be a company limited by guarantee and registered as a charity. The college will be able to seek and obtain the active support and involvement of commerce and industry. It should be able to attract sponsorship consistent with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 and to establish good relations with the educational interests and the broadcasting authorities.
Once established I anticipate that at the heart of the college's relationship with the broadcasters will be an agreement with the Independent Broadcasting Authority. This agreement will as a minumum provide for regular programmes on Channel 4 devoted to college purposes commissioned from a variety of sources by the channel, and for arrangements for promotion of the college. It will set out the participation of the ITV companies in the production and transmission of college programmes and arrange for the involvement of independent local radio. The BBC, too, has expressed a willingness to provide series of programmes and course materials for the college as part of the BBC's continuing education output and there will also be some wider opportunities on daytime television. I would expect the college to pursue those opportunities.
I hope shortly to be able to announce the name of the chairman of the college whose first task will be to conclude detailed plans for the formation of the college after discussions with the Manpower Services Commission, broadcasters, educationists and the many potential


sponsors and guarantors who have already indicated their interest. The Government will be prepared to join with others in acting as guarantors of the College and in contributing to its cost until it is fully established. Our aim is to create a self-sustaining institution which will not have to rely indefinitely on the public purse.
I hope that the College of the Air will start broadcasting no later than September 1987. This is an ambitious project and I anticipate that its range of courses could, within the first five years, provide up to 1 million students with the opportunities to progress towards vocational and technical qualifications.
The establishment of the college, following the developments outlined in our recent White Paper, "Working Together—Education and Training" will offer further radical developments in our training and education systems. It will help with the introduction of courses for the technical and vocational education initiative and be of valuable assistance in the training of teachers in scarce skills. It will also assist in the introduction of enterprise training and give help to careers officers in the field. It will also build on the national vocational qualification to be introduced by the new national council for vocational qualifications. I commend the initiative to the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The idea of a College of the Air is a good one, and in principle hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome it. Unfortunately, when one looks closer at the proposals, one sees some sinister motives behind its creation.
Is the Paymaster General aware that his proposals involved the privatisation of the non-advanced sector of further education? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Paymaster General will go cap in hand to British industry, asking for sponsorship for training? That is bizarre. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the complete collapse of industrial training since the Government came to power in 1979? We need a much bolder initiative than this. Is he further aware that the level of training has decreased from 5–9 per cent. of those working in manufacturing 10 years ago to 2 per cent. now, and that only 112,000 men, women and youngsters are in training in the whole of industry?
A College of the Air based on a voluntary system will not work. How can it be a working proposition when in the past industry has refused to pay for training? Does the Paymaster General believe that industry will suddenly come forward to sponsor the College of the Air? We in the Labour party know that the only way to train our people is to make industry pay and to levy industry.
There is a further exceedingly worrying aspect. It is all very well having television programmes on various channels, but is the Paymaster General aware that the real task of vocational training is done on the ground, face to face, by qualified tutors and teachers? Are we right in thinking that all the contracts for delivery on the ground will be open to tender from any source, whether private contractors or Johnny-come-latelys into training? Is it the case that our further education colleges, their leaders and unions have not been consulted about the College of the Air? Is the Paymaster General aware that, given the widespread despondency in the education and training world, if there has not been consultation on the document and if the Government are to create a private sector of non-advanced further education, it will be resisted throughout the teaching and training profession?
The idea of a College of the Air is a good one. Unfortunately, it will be based on private sponsorship and on the privatisation of the non-advanced further education sector. If that is the case, as we believe it to be, it will not be a success. The spectacle of the Paymaster General trying to sell this as a bold new initiative does no credit to the Government or to the House.

Mr. Clarke: Obviously I am glad that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) began by saying that the idea was good and that he welcomed it in principle. I found most of the rest of his comments a most curiously political reaction, and his desperate attempt to find sinister motives behind the idea particularly curious. There is no question of this being part of any privatisation programme. The college will enter into arrangements with existing colleges of advanced and non-advanced further education and with private training agencies and training organisations set up by companies for their work forces to provide contact with students and to enable them to have access to new material. The College of the Air will have a small central unit and will enter into arrangements with all these groups, including the colleges, for the use of the material by the students.
The hon. Gentleman objects to sponsorship. The companies which have so far expressed support in principle and interest in becoming involved include the Mirror Group, ICI, Prudential Assurance, Lucas, the Burton Group, Unilever and the Bank of England. The motives of these companies are not sinister. They are showing their concern about training, and their support for an idea which will have a substantial impact in opening opportunities to people presently in employment and to the unemployed to add to their skills and improve their position in the labour market.
That should have had an unqualified welcome from the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that, having accepted that there is a need for such a scheme and that it is a good idea, he went on to produce such extremely tortuous at tempts to find something to object to.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, as a strong supporter of distance learning in principle, I welcome the proposal, but it is difficult enough to get industry and business to invest in and support universities and polytechnics? This will clearly be an extremely expensive project. Will he hear in mind that, if it is carrried out at the expense of other institutions of higher education, I shall have to look at it very carefully?

Mr. Clarke: I note my hon. Friend's comments, and I appreciate that he has a strong interest and involvement in higher and further education. I assure him that the cost will not be as heavy as he expects. We are looking for guarantors for the company to support the central unit. We must ensure that the scheme does not lead to competition for funds among instituions of education. The amount of sponsorship and support that we want will be forthcoming without causing damage to other institutions. Among the main users of the College of the Air will be companies which wish to train their work forces. It will become part of their ordinary industrial costs.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: On behalf of the Liberal party, I warmly welcome the idea and regret the somewhat mean spirit in which it was received by the


hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on behalf of the Labour party. However, there are those in education and broadcasting who have already expressed their concern on professional grounds about some of the strategic proposals. I hope that the Paymaster General will note the constructive suggestions from the professionals.
On funding, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the best solution to such projects is a partnership of funding between public and private bodies? Will he encourage the public education authorities and other education bodies to play a proper part, through their own funding, in the College of the Air?
On a personal note, as one who missed out completely on further and higher education at the age of 16 and who had the benefit of second-chance education later, I welcome any chance to broaden the opportunities and widen the horizons of British people. I hope that the idea works and I wish it every success.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the idea and for the fact that he offered himself as an example of what can be achieved if people take advantage of such opportunities. In the discussions which have taken place so far, we have been very much involved with educationists, and we shall continue those discussions. Plainly, it is essential to have the support of those interested in education and training and to have the co-operation and support of professional bodies. Those who are engaged professionally in the colleges and in training organisations will enter into arrangements with the College of the Air to enable students to have access to the programme.

Mr. William Benyon: What role will the Open University play in this scheme? I refer especially to the spare capacity in its modern television and radio studios and to the expertise that it has in distance learning.

Mr. Clarke: I realise that the Open University has been extremely successful in developing its programmes and that it has some spare capacity. We are discussing with the broadcasting authorities access to the main television channels, promotional activity during the day, and the potential for broadcasting training videos. There is not necessarily a conflict or competition with the Open University. If we can build on the experience of the Open University where it is relevant to the project, we shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: What will be achieved by the new college that cannot be achieved by existing educational institutions such as the universities, the Open University and the polytechnics, given adequate resources? In view of the Government's mean and shortsighted handling of the universities, does it not augur ill for any new proposition? How much additional new public money will be involved as a direct consequence of the proposal?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman does not fully appreciate the difference between distance learning, to use the jargon, and the traditional position of students in colleges and universities that he described. Distance learning, which involves the use of material made available through video tapes, audio tapes, books and other material by students such as we describe, enables people

to improve their training while they are at work. They can learn during working hours if the firm enters into the right arrangements. It enables people to acquire more training and education without having to enrol as full-time students at polytechnics, universities or colleges of education. Many people can learn only in that way. It is impossible for them to take one or two years out of their lives to become full-time students.
The proposal is not in any way a challenge to the education institutions or to the professions. It is an addition and a new facility which will support the growth of distance learning and give more opportunities to more people.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: As one whio has an honours degree in the university of life, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am delighted to welcome the College of the Air? Will he take on board the warm welcome expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft)? Those who missed out on higher education will have an opportunity to expand their skills and learning through the scheme. Does he agree that there will be no difficulty in finding sponsorship as companies will flock to the idea? It is very much to their advantage to support the scheme. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the scheme.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No doubt he has a first-class degree in the university of life, which he demonstrates in his lifestyle. He also acknowledges that sometimes more tangible qualifications are required in many walks of life. The scheme will provide an opportunity for many people to acquire skills.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Minister explain what the sponsors will get out of this? Since big business will be involved in one form or another, and since it is involved in making profit at the expense of everyone else, what will it get out of the scheme? Will Imperial tobacco plc be a sponsor? Will any of the companies that are heavily involved in South Africa take part in sponsorship? Can he give me a guarantee that the College of the Air will not be the 18th occasion on which the Government have fiddled the dole figures?

Mr. Clarke: Big and small companies are interested in improving their competitiveness and performance and, therefore, guaranteeing their continued existence and giving added security to their work forces. What a company will get out of this scheme is the ability to give extra training to its work force, to raise the level of skill and, therefore, improve competitiveness and the job security of the workers. Big companies have expressed a general interest in the scheme and have supported it in principle. Small companies will receive assistance, if necessary, through the Manpower Services Commission's training programmes to participate in the scheme. The effect can only be beneficial, both for industry and for employment.
I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's comment about tobacco companies as a serious one and tell him that they will be governed by the usual rules that apply to sponsorship and advertising by those companies, particularly in broadcast material. Therefore, the ability of tobacco companies to participate in sponsorship would be limited. Cigarette manufacturers would be barred from


being involved in broadcast material. There would be no such sponsorship on the air; that has been banned for many years.
The hon. Gentleman's persistence in trying to find a connection with other political issues, such as South Africa and the calculation of the unemployment figures, is about as pathetic as the attempts of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to link my statement with the usual political debate. The new college will be beneficial for companies and their employees and for the unemployed. It ought to be welcomed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind the fact that Friday provides a greater opportunity for Back Benchers to take part in debates. I will allow questions on the statement to go on for another 10 minutes and I hope that in that time everyone who wishes to be called will be called.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the open learning courses? Would one such course be a study in depth of Select Committee recommendations in relation to the behaviour of most senior civil servants who are as close to the Prime Minister as Haldeman and Ehrlichman were to Richard Nixon? The description is "improper".

Mr. Clarke: As one who frequently has to study Select Committee reports as part of his job, I am sure that I am being educated and trained every time that I turn to one from the Select Committee on Employment or elsewhere, just as I am always educated by the hon. Gentleman's ability to make his point in the most ingenious way on what are otherwise irrelevant matters.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend extremely warmly on this timely, important and imaginative initiative. May I point out, as I have sought to do in the House on previous occasions, that the value of a service of this kind is enormously enhanced if it is not confined to an English language service? We should aim to produce a world service, on the model of the English language services of the BBC.
There would be a new source of funds to finance the project if we worked with the European Community to make the project part of our contribution to the Lomé convention.

Mr. Clarke: As we must have further discussions with the broadcasting authorities, I shall bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend. Certainly the Open University and the Open Tech have gained substantial export earnings and found substantial interest abroad in the learning material that they produce.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister tell us what significant feature is found in the new scheme, other than commercial sponsorship, that is not actually or potentially within the present structure, including the Open University and the public system of education?
Secondly, what proportion of public and private sponsorship money does the Minister expect to find for the scheme? Thirdly, when people have done their distance learning, who will provide the money for centres where machinery, plant and experienced skilled persons will top it up?

Mr. Clarke: The Open University is providing extremely good quality academic education. The Open Tech is a procurer of programmes, largely aimed at training technicians—quite a narrow field — and also achieving good quality programmes. The College of the Air will be much broader and is aimed at a wide range of education or training for skills. It will aim to provide a much wider range of qualifications and steps towards qualifications in each course. It will fill a gap and invite collaboration with a much wider range of organisations than is the case with existing institutions.
It is not intended that the College of the Air will be sustained by public funds except in the early stages, because there is no doubt that it will be of such value to industry that it will have no difficulty in attracting sponsorship. Obviously there is a political divide between us. I cannot understand why the Labour party is instinctively hostile to a scheme the moment it discovers that it is not dependent on the taxpayer for its financing.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I join in the general welcome that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement deserves and I hope that the College of the Air will succeed, but I draw attention to the fact that the statement raises again the question whether we need a Department of education and training. After all, the very name of the new institution suggests that the Department of Education and Science should be closely interested in it. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) illustrates the great need for co-ordination.
We are promoting an exciting new enterprise in education and training, and some public funds will be necessary, but under the existing policy we are depriving Birkbeck college of London university of funds. Birkbeck does a useful job in a related field to that about which my right hon. and learned Friend has been speaking. May we have some co-ordination to ensure that Birkbeck has a part to play in the new institution?

Mr. Clarke: Questions about the structure of Government ought to he addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am sure that she would agree with me and my hon. Friend that concentrating on the structure of Government and the shape of Government Departments is less important than concentrating on what they do. I assure my hon. Friend that there are close relationships between myself and my rght hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment and that we work closely in all these areas. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments about Birkbeck college to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Alan Williams: We were saddened to hear about the academic shortcomings of the Eton education enjoyed by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), but we recognise that in his case perhaps Eton is not entirely to blame.
May I return to the important matter of funding? We do not want any fudging. May we have a simple answer? What proportion of the funding of the new service will be provided by the Government? Is it true that the proportion will probably be less than 5 per cent.?

Mr. Clarke: Knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) as I do, I can vouch for the fact that his mind is as formidable as his physique.
The Government will be one of the guarantors of the company when it is set up. We expect that the college will require pump-priming funding, which will be derived from the budget of the Manpower Services Commission, but we expect that the college will be self-financing. If we can start with as little as 5 per cent. public funding, I shall regard that as a virtue. We cannot be specific at this stage, because one of the first tasks of the chairman and the college will be to work out proposals in more detail, to get the costs specified, and to begin to attract sponsorship. We shall put in the public money required to get it under way. It is intended that it will become wholly self-financing within a short period.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the initiative. Does he agree that the concern expressed by industry about the need for employees to be trained for vocational jobs will be met by the initiative, because employers will be able to say to the College of the Air, "These are the sort of training programmes that we want and these are the skills and employees that we want you to produce"?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is essential that training is geared closely to the needs of employers and what is required in employment. It is a positive advantage of the scheme that it will attract private sponsorship, because that will enable it to meet that essential requirement.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Many will be surprised at the carping tone of the Opposition, coming as it does from the party of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx who created the Open University; although one recalls that it was my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, gave new life to it. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of my interest in the TVEI scheme, especially as it was pioneered in Gainsborough, as well as my interest in vocational training. How does he expect schools to benefit from the new scheme and how will the scheme be sponsored by industry as regards the perhaps 40 per cent. of children who do not receive an adequate technical training under the present comprehensive system?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's first comment, despite the barracking from Labour Members insisting that they provided the cash. The Opposition apparently welcome our proposal as a good idea in principle but insist that the taxpayer must pay for it despite the willingness of many large firms to sponsor it a most curious reaction.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continued support for TVEI which, to some extent, was pioneered in Lincolnshire. The College of the Air will encourage the production of programmes which could be used directly by post-16-year-old students in schools involved in TVEI. The material that we have in mind is aimed at anyone in education from 16-plus and schools may well participate in the arrangements.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As we are approaching the summer holiday, I will call the three hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye, but I ask them to be brief.

Mr. Eric Forth: When the scheme achieves the success that it deserves, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider re-examining the basis on which some existing facilities such as the Open University are funded and moving them in the directon of this scheme rather than vice versa?

Mr. Clarke: I note my hon. Friend's comments. The Open University has already taken great steps to market its material and to raise a considerable proportion of its own resources to supplement the public funding and the other universities are also making great efforts to involve industry much more and to have access to the type of funding that American universities have enjoyed for years. I entirely share my hon. Friend's approach to this.

Mr. Tony Marlow: What an excellent idea that is! As my right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt be looking for somewhere to locate the headquarters of this exciting scheme — somewhere central, growing, expanding, positive and energetic, with above average intelligence and possibly quite close to Milton Keynes — will he consider placing it in Northampton?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right in saying that one of the first things to be discussed when the chairman is appointed will be the location of the central unit to start the college's work. I shall certainly note that my hon. Friend has made the first bid for the location of the unit in suggesting his own constituency.

Mr. William Cash: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this superb initiative. With regard to the carping remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other Opposition Members, does he agree that Oxford, Cambridge and many of our other universities were endowed by the people who had the money at that time—great merchants and others—and that without that kind of sponsorship there would be no universities of the sort now being created through my right hon. and learned Friend's brilliant initiative?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree. Had we announced that the scheme would be wholly financed from public funds, when Labour Members discovered the huge commercial advantage to companies in the upgrading of the skills of their work force the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other Labour Members would doubtless have criticised the extent to which we were subsidising capitalism out of taxpayers' money. I think that they have merely latched on to the argument mentioned by my hon. Friend today for lack of any other argument to latch on to.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition greet his announcement with some suspicion because it comes after seven years of dismantling education and training in this country? Like UK2000, it is yet again something that will cost the Government very little. A scheme with a large element of privatisation which will not be financed by the Government will look to most people like another example of the gimmick a day that the Government hope will keep the electorate at bay. Scheme


after scheme is being announced by the Government because they know that they are deeply unpopular in all these spheres, and the election is coming.

Mr. Clarke: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that his suspicions are groundless and I trust that they will be allayed as the details are worked out. I advise him to stick to his original comment that the scheme is a good idea which he welcomes in principle.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and measure:

1. Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Act 1986
2. Latent Damage Act 1986
3. Outer Space Act 1986
4. Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986
5. Education Act 1986
6. Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986

New Towns

Question again proposed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Four towns are mentioned in the order. Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), I am the only Member present representing one of those towns. Why have I been banished to outer darkness?

Mr. Speaker: That is most unlike the hon. Gentleman. It is only 11.30 and he has certainly not been banished. Indeed, if he remains in the Chamber he may well catch the eye of the Chair, but I now call Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: The order marks another signpost on the route towards the fulfilment of the Government's welcome commitment to bring about a successful conclusion to the new towns programme. The Department's policy has rightly concentrated on the maximum possible involvement of the private sector and a disengagement which leaves self-sufficient communities able to generate their own growth without special assistance from the public sector. The new towns specifically mentioned in the order are taken further towards the achievement of those goals, but the measure arouses concern in terms of both the present and the future situation. The word "accountability" perhaps sums up that concern.
This extinguishment of liabilities gives no indication of how public money has been spent by the quango development corporations and whether it has been spent wisely. In due course, presumably, the new towns will find themselves under yet another quango authority, as the two that I represent in mid-Hertfordshire have found themselves, the corporations being transmuted into one New Towns Commission with a modus operandi that is equally hard to scrutinise.
The extinguishment of liabilities — this time to the taxpayer — will be taken on by the New Towns Commission in terms of realising the assets of the towns in its care. The success or otherwise of that operation is highly relevant to today's debate. Questions of wisdom again might well be raised, as current actions show marked contrasts; for example, Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield had only £6·5 million and £2 million of their assets sold in the last 12 months, compared with £20 million for Hemel Hempstead, a town of similar size in the same county.
With the passing of this order, the need for legislation enabling the New Towns Commission and the development corporations to be the subject of inquiries by the ombudsman becomes the more acute. At present, constituents experiencing difficulties related to the management or purchase of remaining assets are denied recourse to the ombudsman. The Government's intentions in this regard are welcome, but the necessary legislation would be even more welcome
It is to be hoped that the order, despite the problems of accountability that it raises, will assist in bringing the remaining new towns closer to the normality of being simply towns, as the winding up of the New Town Commission legislation correctly envisages. The


Government can then concentrate their efforts on inner city regeneration rather then greenfield development, with the success of the London Docklands Development Corporation as the new waymark.

Mr. W. Benyon: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), with one interruption from the Conservative Benches, because the figures that are involved in his new town are almost precisely the same as in mine.
I shall endeavour to put to the House a rather different appreciation of how we see matters in Milton Keynes. However, I sincerely welcome the order. It is long overdue. We were forced to borrow long when we should have been borrowing short, and the order puts us back on the right financial footing. I hope to be able to show that the Government have achieved fantastic value for their investment.
I was adopted as a candidate for the then constituency of Buckingham in 1967, the year that Milton Keynes was designated. It started building in earnest in 1973, some 13 years ago. In those days, we were a music hall joke. We were the place to which one sent one's mother-in-law, and that attitude gathered weight when we had our concrete cows.
Now, 13 years later, we have 128,000—not 122,000—inhabitants, 60,000 new jobs and a first-class infrastructure which is the envy of many other part of the country — a very good communications service with a new railway station, new roads, and all the rest of the infrastructure that is needed for a modern city. We have a flourishing commercial and retail centre, and recreational and cultural activities to go with it. We also have an energy park, which is just about to open its first development.
We have been innovative in housing design and tenure. There is more shared ownership in Milton Keynes than anywhere else in the country. We have 3,000 houses in shared ownership. In short, it is the most successful, the fastest growing community in the United Kingdom.
How has that been achieved with the money that we are now proposing to write off in the order? First and foremost, it has been achieved by a development corporation, well backed by local authorities which have put the needs of industry and commerce above everything else. As a result, over £1 billion of private investment has been attracted since Milton Keynes started. That has resulted in the success of this city. Without the jobs and the wealth creation that goes with them, that sort of growth would have been impossible.
The important thing, however, is the gearing between public expenditure on the one hand, which is what we are talking about with this order, and private investment. In Milton Keynes it is 1:4.

Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend recall the occasion when he kindly accompanied me on a visit to Milton Keynes? Has he not omitted one remarkable feature of Milton Keynes? Will he tell the House of the nearly 1,250,000 trees and shrubs that have been planted?

Mr. Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that additional investment. That is all

part of the same picture. It makes the place more attractive. It makes firms want to go there, and it creates the sort of environment in which people want to live.

Mr. Gow: And birds.

Mr. Benyon: Indeed.
People sometimes complain to me that some of the investment that has been made has resulted in too few directly employed people, but they fail to realise the enormous spin-off in the service industries that comes from these investments. That is often forgotten.
The process which culminates in this order has coloured my view of the role of the state in a modern capitalist society. I see that as a pump-priming and innovative role, where the state starts things moving and then gets out. I was one of those who attended the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) of representatives of local authorities in whose areas new towns are situated. I was horrified that they seemed to be interested only in retaining assets in their own control and ownership. That is not the way forward for the future.
What we have managed to do in Milton Keynes and other new towns is an example that must be followed elsewhere.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend says that that example must be followed elsewhere, but, I recall that when I was a member of the Greater London council we were in the process of reversing our policy of encouraging London overspill and the movement of industry out of London to the new towns on the ground that it was denuding central London of resources which London needed to survive. Therefore, does my hon. Friend, with his great experience of these matters, feel that the process should be continued?

Mr. Benyon: I have obviously not explained myself well enough. I was going on to say that the example of Milton Keynes should be followed in urban centres. It has already been followed by the urban development corporation— very successfully in the docklands and fairly successfully in Merseyside, although, obviously, the difficulties there are far greater. That example needs to be followed far more widely than by just the urban development corporations.
This sort of operation should cover the depressed urban areas of England. I suppose that what I am really asking for is an English Development Board, on the lines of the Scottish and Welsh equivalents. The order shows the way forward. I am suggesting an organisation with a finite life of, say, 20 years, with the planning powers that exist at present in urban development corporations and new town corporations and—this is essential in urban areas—it should be the only source of housing finance in those areas. Therefore, it should be able to override, if necessary, the programmes of local authorities.
How should that be funded? It should be funded initially, as were these four new towns, by the Government — the taxpayer. That is an essential characteristic. I noticed from the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) that the Opposition have missed the point that the Government provide all the finance for the new towns. Therefore, they are the sole shareholder in a substantial property investment.
I am suggesting that the Government should be the shareholder in this new development agency and should


also take over the assets of the new towns commission and be the repository of assets on the winding-up of new towns, so that there is a roll-over of finance. That is what I have always wanted for Britain's housing regeneration. I want an organisation which will roll over funds and will not go anywhere near the Treasury. The proceeds of what is sold should not go to the Treasury, but should be rolled over into further development in these depressed urban areas and improve them.
Local authorities are not fitted to undertake that task, and most of them admit it. Over the past year or so we have been faced with the difficulty of the winding up date for the Milton Keynes corporation. We have now been given a date of 1992. I make no secret of the fact that I should have preferred it to be later, and a future Government when it comes to consider the matter again in the 1990s will probably have to decide to go on a bit longer.
The point is that from every political party, local authority, business, trade union, and so on, the message to the Government was the same—"Look, this is a good thing. This is not something that the local authorities can take on. They do not want to do it, they do not have the resources and they want the development corporation to continue."
We are talking about a commercial operation. That is the key to the success of the new towns. It requires special skills. Most new towns are nearing completion and have a great reserve of staff with the necessary expertise. We should draw on that expertise and add to it from industry and the property world. It is a most exciting prospect. We should draw on experience in the United States of America, where enormous strides in urban renovation have been taken. The United States has been particularly successful in dealing with the problems in ethnic minority communities.
If such investment could be coupled with a new look at housing finance on the lines of the report by the Duke of Edinburgh's committee which inquired into British housing, we would be on the verge of a major breakthrough in the inner cities. The regeneration of our inner cities is by far the greatest challenge that faces the country. We should meet that challenge with all the vigour and expertise at our command.

Mr. Ian Gow: It is a sign of the enormous importance of this debate that the Minister responsible for sport is seated on the Treasury Bench and not watching a game of cricket. It is a matter of never-ending debate whether my hon. Friend the Minister is better seated on the Treasury Bench or employed encouraging our sportsmen. There is little doubt that our sportsmen are in need of encouragement. At a time of the one-day test matches against New Zealand — which has not yet withdrawn from the Commonwealth games—I wish to pay a particular tribute to the Minister responsible for sport, even though I do not wish to judge whether he might be better employed giving instruction to the English cricket team.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the good fortune, as I have, to listen to the whole debate. It is a matter of misfortune for Mr. speaker that he did not have the opportuniy to listen to my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport. However, mercifully, due to the

Official Report, Mr. Speaker will be able to read, study and even commit to memory the Minister's introductory speech.
I must remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though you were in the Chair at the time, that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) criticised my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley). That is within the recollection of all hon. Members. It was suggested that my hon. Friend was trying to prolong the debate. But what do I find? I find that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport, tearing himself away from the test match, addressed the House for 19 minutes. I find that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrekin, even though he gave way with his customary courtesy to those of his hon. Friends who sought to intervene — however relevant or irrelevant those interventions were — spoke for 31 minutes. For how long did the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington delay the House? He detained the House for 34 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are all thankful for small mercies, but we really must get on to the order.

Mr. Gow: Since it was in order for the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington to comment on the length of the speeches by two of my hon. Friends, it is surely in order for me, so that Mr. Speaker can read my response in the Official Report, to say that the official Opposition spokesman addressed the House for three minutes longer than my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend recall that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) was unable to give way to interventions? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any of my hon. Friends catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, we may have to make our remarks more elaborate to provide the answers which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington did not give us.

Mr. Gow: I agree. Although the official Opposition spokesman addressed the House for 15 minutes longer than the Minister, he said in that lengthy speech a great deal less than my hon. Friend.
In the second part of my preamble I want to address myself to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. He referred to the chairman of the Telford development corporation who appropriately, is known not only as the noble Lord Lord Northfield but as the noble Lord Lord Northfield of Telford. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not wish to give the wrong impression. I am sure that he did not wish to give the impression that he had anything other than total confidence in the noble Lord who is the chairman of the development corporation. I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that assumption.
I turn from those preliminary points to the order. All my hon. Friends will share my deep regret that no Treasury Minister is seated on the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who is listening attentively to the debate, is not yet a Lords Commissioner, but perhaps I am wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say that this is a very long preamble. The hon. Gentleman must discuss the order before the House.

Mr. Gow: I was asking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, from whom we do not hear sufficiently frequently—

Mr. Tracey: I feel that it is my duty to confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) is, indeed, a Lords Commissioner.

Mr. Gow: I apologise. I asked the question because I was not certain. We do not ask questions to which we know the answers. I am, of course, pleased that a Lords Commissioner is sitting on the Treasury Bench. He is not alone because, mercifully, sitting beside him is the Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope).

Mr. Dalyell: While the hon. Gentleman is on about Treasurers, what about the International Monetary Fund and Mr. Witteveen, about whom the hon. Gentleman used to talk in the early 1970s? Where has he gone?

Mr. Gow: I shall certainly not disappoint the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who I understand has one of the Adjournment debates, because I shall be coming to Mr. Witteveen. The hon. Gentleman will recall the famour letter of 15 December 1976 when the present Shadow Foreign Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to have to ask him to resume his seat. He must come to the matter that is before the House. The discussion so far has been wide of the order which is before the House.

Mr. Gow: It was not I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who referred to Dr. Johannes Witteveen. It was the hon. Member for Linlithgow who was addressing the House on that subject.
I wish to comment upon the order, which was presented by the Minister with responsibility for sport. He commended the order to the House. In my opinion, there should have been present on the Government Front Bench a Treasury Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford, though a Lords Commissioner, was not upon the Treasury Bench when my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport was moving the order.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Would my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Gow: I am not a right hon. Member.

Mr. Soames: That was an accident, and an unfortunate one. I am sorry that I was wrong in the first place. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is entirely appropriate that our hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport should be present? One of the great shames of the new towns has been experienced recently in my constituency, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have a great deal of sympathy with it. Land formerly owned by the Commission for the New Towns that was used to provide playing fields has been sold for development, thereby taking away land on which competitive games could be played. The use of the land for that purpose has ended and instead it will be used for the provision of supermarkets. Surely it is not inappropriate that my hon. Friend the Minister is here to take account of the punishment that we shall have to give him later on for that.

Mr. Gow: I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I was trying to pay him an eloquent tribute, and it was certainly intended to be so. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) — his constituency used to be Horsham and

Crawley—has made quite an important point because within some of the development corporation areas we have both playing fields and houses. It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Minister—we hope that he will have responsibility for sport for many, many years to come—is a member of the ministerial team of the Department of the Environment, which has responsibility for some aspects of housing, which you may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am qualified to judge.

Mr. Leigh: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was making an extremely interesting intervention with regard to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. He talked about competitive spirit. Local Labour parties are in a controlling position in some of the new towns and I fear that they may soon be adopting the position of the Labour group on ILEA. I do not know whether my hon. Friend read the interesting letter that appeared in The Times from a master at the Oratory school. Apparently that school, which once excelled at cricket—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pursues that line, he will be entirely out of order.

Mr. Gow: I shall not be led astray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by any of my hon. Friends. I wish now—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret having to raise another point of order. This debate involves a considerable sum of public money. It is being spent on new towns. Much of it has been spent on the establishment of schools at taxpayers' expense, at the people's expense. How these schools are operated within new towns is surely germane to the expenditure of this public money. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would reconsider your ruling in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging the judgment of the Chair.

Mr. Gow: I was confirming to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure to your significant relief, that I shall not be led astray by any of my hon. Friends.
I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 19 of the order, the order having been moved by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. The notes to the order do not form part of the order. I want to make that clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I am referring to an explanatory note, and I think that the learned Clerk will confirm that we are able to refer to the explanatory note in the debate. This matter was not mentioned even in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes. Apparently, he could not make time enough to refer to it and so I want to put right his omission. I do not want to criticise my hon. Friend's speech, but I think that he is guilty of an omission.
We are invited in the order, with the presence of only my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, a Lords Commissioner, and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, to agree to "extinguish"—you may think that that is an interesting word, Mr. Deputy Speaker—£1,687,686,405·98. Some of my hon. Friends who are chartered accountants may wonder how 98p


found its way into a sum that is close to the limit that was laid down in the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985.
It so happens that in an earlier incarnation I was responsible for putting what was then the Bill upon the statute book. We note the serried ranks of the Liberal party, which has taken such a keen interest in our affairs. We find that in the order we are almost up to the limit which is laid down in the Act. It is that which is causing such deep concern to my hon. Friends. It is something that 1 expected would excite the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes. I want to refer to my hon. Friends—I cannot refer the Opposition Front Bench to this because it is empty—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who I see is leaving his place —I hope that he is not going too far, but if he leaves the Chamber perhaps he will find out what the cricket score is in the test match and come back to tell my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, who may be interested—to section 8(2), which refers to the
aggregate amount of liabilities extinguished by order under this section shall not exceed £1,750 million.
But what do we find? We find that in the first order to be made under the Act, which reached the statute book only last year, on 11 March—it is now 18 July, so barely a year has passed — the Minister with responsibility for sport, not the the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury or even my hon. Friend the Minster of State, Treasury, has invited the House to write off nearly the full amount that is set out in the order. It is my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport who has done that. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend—how can I?—when I say that we need not only my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, the Lords Commissioner, who was not present at the start of the debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen).

Mr. Leigh: The Vice-Chamberlain.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right. He is clearly well informed on these matters.
I can confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome is the Vice-Chamberlain to Her Majesty's Household, and that he does not have specific responsibilities for Treasury matters, however. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has entered the Chamber. He told me that he had a particular interest in new town development corporations, but it is not only that interest which is so pertinent to these proceedings. I see also that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is in his place. My hon. Friend used to be the PPS to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has referred to my interest in new towns. It so happens that the constituency of Epping Forest abuts upon Harlow, the centre of a new town of great beauty. I wish I could say that all of the inhabitants live up to the beauty of that environment. There is a serious matter between Epping Forest and Harlow, and the House may be aware that Harlow is endeavouring to extend its boundaries and to build houses in the green belt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The issue that is between Harlow and the constituency of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is nothing to do with the order. The extension of boundaries is not mentioned in the order.

Mr. Gow: I do not want to be led astray by any of my hon. Friends, however eminent they may be. It is difficult to think of a Member of greater eminence than my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Gow: I shall not give way, even to my hon. Friend. I shall do so later. I want to make progress. We do not wish the debate to be protracted because the Minister wants to watch the test match. He is not the only one. I would much rather be watching it than making a speech.
It is only just over a year since the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985—perhaps I can call it the parent Act — reached the statute book. Yet the Minister with responsibility for sport has used up almost all the authority contained in the parent Act. We are allowed to extinguish only £1,750 million worth of debt. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes did not address that issue. We have almost exhausted the total authority conferred in the parent Act.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Gow: I wish to make progress. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend.
I invite my hon. Friends to study the order. I have been a Member only for a short time — possibly an even shorter time than my hon. Friend the Minister. I find it impossible to relate the many figures in the order to specific items. The figures must relate to specific items, otherwise they would not be listed separately. If they do not relate to individual items, why not keep them all together and total them up?
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has an acute financial brain. I have just seen him studying the order with great care. He has studied with particular care the advances made to the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation. I refer my hon. Friend to page 18 of the order. I shall try to take my hon. Friends through it I invite them to turn to page 18 of the order for my seminar. You might like to join in, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The penultimate line relates to No. WA397. Can my hon. Friend see the figure of £1 million?

Mr. Soames: Yes, I can see that.

Mr. Gow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) can see it. the figure in the next column is £999,899·38. I ask the Minister what has happened to the £100·62. Am I right in saying that the difference between the two figures is £100·62? If I have got that wrong, I shall give way to any of my hon. Friends who wishes to put me right.

Mr. Cash: I refer to the debate on 20 November 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), the then Minister for Housing and Construction, moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He referred to clause 8 — it is now section 8 — under which the powers are obtained. He said that the clause gave power to his right hon. Friend, his then senior Minister,


to suspend sufficient of their debt to enable them to break even."—(Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol.68, col. 166.]
I fail to understand how he, as the person who created the Bill, can say that there are discrepancies on the figures.

Mr. Gow: I think that the surname of my hon. Friend shows why he is able so readily to comment on the two figures. I am responsible for the debate only in the sense that I was in charge of the Bill before it was enacted. I cannot assume the responsibility, which rests on the broad shoulders of the Minister with responsibility with sport, for the order. I am happy to take criticisms from any of my hon. Friends. I shall plead guilty to almost every charge levelled at me, but I shall not plead guilty to drawing up the order because I did not do so.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: rose—

Mr. Gow: I shall not give way. I wish to make progress. I ask the Minister what happened to that £100·62? That is the difference between the amount of the advance and the principal outstanding on 31 August 1986. The Minister is not saying that that is the amount outstanding on 18 July. He is saying something quite different. He is saying that on 31 August the amount outstanding will be £999,899·38. I find it difficult to see how the amount under WA397 could have been £1 million precisely when the advance was made. By 31 August all the test matches will have been completed and the Minister will be able to direct more of his time to important financial matters. How does he hit on that figure? I have studied the matter with the same keen interest as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder). I refer the Minister to page 7 of the order. I shall take my hon. Friends through it again. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley with me?

Mr. Soames: Yes, all the way.

Mr. Gow: No. T57—

Mr. Soames: It is a frigate.

Mr. Gow: It is not a frigate. My hon. Friend is the vice-chairman of the Conservative defence committee. We are discussing new towns, not frigates. It is quite difficult to distinguish between the two. The numbers chosen by my hon. Friend may have been chosen to confuse my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. That is why we are happy to have the chance to explain the matters. No. T57 shows a figure of £70,000. The next column shows that the principal outstanding on 31 August 1986 is £69,423·15. I ask the Minister what has happened to the £576·85. I am doing the figures in my head. Is that the difference?

Mr. Murphy: It is £476.

Mr. Gow: I think that I was right. The figure is £576·85. I pose a question to the Minster with responsibility for sport not a Treasury Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Gow: I am trying to make progress.
What has happened to that £576·85? On which date was it repaid? What rate of interest was charged between the date when the advance was made and when it was repaid? What happened to the public sector borrowing

requirement between those dates? Those are all questions to which the House will require answers from my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport.

Mr. Soames: Before my hon. Friend leaves this important matter and seeks the answers which the House must have, will he look at T8 and the advance of £13,886·21 and the principal outstanding of £12,887·77? What has happened to that £999? Will the House be given an answer to that?

Mr. Gow: That will be a matter of great hope for all of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley may catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that, if my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, who is one of the most courteous, well-informed and diligent of Ministers, cannot deal with all the points raised, he will write to each of my hon. Friends whose questions remain unanswered.
I wish to move from the relevant point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. One is often tempted to refer to his constituency as Horsham and Crawley, but that temptation must be resisted, as others should be. I shall now consider the principle of this matter. The speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State — which you were lucky enough to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker—did not show that he had discharged the duty which each of us has to our constituents when we are discussing public funds. The words "public funds" should never be used in the House because we are not talking about public money. We are talking about other people's money of which we are trustees. Each of us had a duty, which was not discharged by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, to ensure that we take much greater care of other people's money than of our own.
The motion was not moved in a manner that led me to believe that my hon. Friend the Minister is totally committed at all times in all circumstances to taking greater care of other people's money than of our own. The order asks us to write off a debt by development corporations to the Treasury. It is not really a debt to the Treasury; it is a debt owed to the British people. Hon. Members are invited not by a Treasury Minister but by a sports Minister to write off the debt owed to the British people.
Perhaps, to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, a sum of just under £1·75 billion is not significant, but it is a large sum to his hon. Friends. The "extinguishment", to use the words of the order, of a sum of that magnitude required a speech by a Minister other than the Minister with responsibility for sport. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend. It is just a question whether the House has its priorities right and whether it should insist that, in considering so large a sum, a Treasury Minister who can explain these grave matters should be present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes who is on earlier incomation represented Buckingham, made on excellent and important speech. No hon. Member is better informed about new towns than my hon. Friend. From the gestation of planning to growth of his town, my hon. Friend has watched one of the most remarkable success stories of this century. When 1 was responsible for these maters, I had the privilege of being taken by my hon.
Friend around his new town. I endorse everything that he has said. I believe that my hon. Friend is a member of the Centre Forward group.—Is that what it is called?

Mr. Benyon: That is correct.

Mr. Gow: I think that my hon. Friend is a member—do not know whether you are a member, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of what is called the Centre Forward group. It is well known that I have received no invitation to join that group, although I criticise no one for that.
The point which I am making to—

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that, as a distinguished Deputy Speaker, you are in some difficulty with the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). We all find it sad when a distinguished former Minister has to perform in the way he has today, but that reflects what is perhaps happening to the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman is abusing the privileges of the House. I should like you to rule whether his remarks about political grouping—revealing the splits in the Conservative party—are relevant to the order and are in order. I rise with great reluctance to raise this point of order.

Mr. Proctor: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the intervention by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) intolerable in view of the lack of support on the Labour Benches and the fact that there is no representative of the Social Democratic party or of the Liberal party present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the debate. I shall judge when comments are out of order.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes is not always regarded as occupying precisely the same place in the political spectrum as me; yet I have found myself in warm and enthusiastic agreement with every word he uttered. I pay tribute to his knowldege, deep understanding and concern on this issue. I hope that it will not be too long before my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes is sitting, not on the fourth Bench below the Gangway but on the Treasury Bench. Before long, we will be invited to vote on this order. There may not be a vote—

Mr. Soames: There will be a vote.

Mr. Gow: Well, it would not surprise me if there is a vote because the duty of protecting the public purse, the money of the people, is one of the highest duties conferred upon hon. Members. If my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley should decide to vote against this order—I will not be in the Lobby with him because, despite the reservations I have expressed, I intend to support it—I would find it perfectly in accordance with the honour and reputation for financial probity enjoyed by my hon. Friend. Therefore, I will understand if he decides to lead some of my hon. Friends into the Opposition Lobby, but I am sure that my hon. Friends would understand that I would regret it. In so far as I may have any influence with my hon. Friends, and in so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley may value my advice, my advice is that they should support the Government, despite the reservations I have expressed.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: There can be few of us present this morning who have not been much seized by

what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has had to say on this important matter. I am sure that all those who have listened to what he has had to say will have to reconsider their position on this matter. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend was not allowed 10 pursue the line that he used to take with Dr. Johannes Witteveen in the early 1970s. When I was not a member of the House, I remember reading avidly in Hansard and in the newspapers about the many opportunities that my hon. Friend had to use that correspondence in the House to devastating effect and to the great encouragement of those of us outside the House. It is a shame that we did not have a chance to develop that argument. I shall not develop it, because I want to make some serious points about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.
The spending of public funds, of other people's money, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is like marriage. It is not something to be entered into lightly or wantonly. My hon. Friend the Minister, without meaning to do so, but because of his many responsibilities over an enormous area in the Department of the Environment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne knows well, was almost obliged to discuss this matter in a light and wanton way. We are talking about vast sums of taxpayers' money being written off under this order. There is a lack of equity in this order and I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to address himself to that.
My constituency was one of the first generation of new towns. It profited and grew enormously in the 1950s and 1960s. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne wishes to see the second generation new towns repaying their debt to the British people. My constituency, I am proud to say, is repaying its debt in a major way. In some respects, it is being asked to do too much. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minster will consider the almost rapacious attitude of the Commission for the New Towns when disposing of these properties, which it is rightly charged to do by Her Majesty's Treasury.
There is an obligation laid upon the commission by the House to discharge its duties in what is called the rationalisation of these properties. I do not quarrel with the way that it does that, because it does it very efficiently, but one of the side effects in my constituency is that the small trader—an important part of the economy, the backbone of the recreation of the enormous number of new jobs for which the Government have been responsible —is being driven from his property by the Commission for the New Towns because of the enormous values being placed on these properties in the open market. I do not quarrel with that. Dr. Witteveen would not have quarrelled with that. The fact is that Crawley is repaying its debt in a significant way.

Mr. Gow: The principles, which were laid down by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the shadow Foreign Secretary, are being put at risk, because it was the International Monetary Fund which insisted on the Labour party pursuing a policy of relative financial rectitude. What we are concerned about is whether in the order we may be slightly slipping from the path of total financial rectitude. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Dr. Witteveen. I think that he is still alive, and I hope that he will have a very long life.

Mr. Soames: We in the House owe a great debt to Dr. Witteveen. Indeed, the Conservative Opposition in the late


1970s owed a particular debt to him. I have no doubt that he would have been grateful and proud of the fact that the mouthpiece of his opinion in the Chamber should have been my hon. Friend.
I return to the order. My hon. Friend is right to drag us relentlessly back to the grind of argument and the rapier thrust in the debate, which is how we are to deal with the extinguishment of these liabilities. You were not here. Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the earlier part of the debate, which has not been marred in any way by the clash of alternative views on the Conservative Benches as to the best way to handle the matter.
The order gives effect to a financial reconstruction of four new town development corporations — Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Telford and Warrington and Runcorn. I should like to say a word about Milton Keynes and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I represent a new town seat. It has been my privilege to learn a great deal about the new towns movement from my hon. Friend, to whom a warm and right tribute was paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes knows a great deal about these matters and I would be guided in the debate to a great extent by the points that he makes, but there is some inequity, with which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will deal. I wonder why my constituency should be penalised in the most extraordinary way in the disposal of the assets imposed on it by the present shadow Foreign Secretary in his terrible and desperate attempts to pull this country's economy round after he had half bankrupted it. Why should my constituents be penalised to pay for Telford, Warrington and Runcorn and Peterborough?
That is an important point. My constituents will not easily understand why a town such as Milton Keynes, where I know an enormous amount of money had to be spent on the infrastructure, the development of the roads, and so on, and which is a successful town, should be able to have its liabilities discharged on an enormous scale, when many of them are paying hand over fist to try to secure commercial properties. Extraordinary sums of money are involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will know the reason for that, because he is a learned and distinguished man. He knows my constituency and my part of the world. He will know that my constituency has the lowest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. I discussed it only the other day with the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I grieve with him over the problems that he has compared with the benefits of full employment that 1 have in my constituency. I wish that he could have the same in his constituency.
One of the penalties of success for my constituency has been the extraordinary value that has been attached to commercial properties. I come back to the lack of equity in the order. I wonder why these millions of pounds should be written off overnight when my constituents are carrying the can for Warrington and Runcorn, Telford, Peterborough and Milton Keynes.
I come to the burden of what I have to say. We are told that the financial reconstruction proposals embodied in the order have been formulated by reference to projections of income and expenditure over the next 20 years. What

expressions of confidence will My hon. Friend the Minister make to the House today about the reliability of those forecasts? What expressions of confidence were made in the House 20 years ago about the forecasts for Warrington and Runcorn, Telford and Peterborough?

Mr. Gow: Is my hon. Friend aware that responsibility for weather forecasting rests partly with the Ministry of Defence and partly with the Department of the Environment? I say that only because the Department of the Environment has responsibility for the water industry—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That clearly has nothing to do with the business before the House.

Mr. Gow: I was about to make the point about forecasting because my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly raising matters that are irrelevant. I hope that he will not disregard my ruling again.

Mr. Soames: With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker — and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will abide by your judgment—forecasting is crucial. I remind you that you were in the Chair on one occasion when I had a difficult debate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the forecasting of traffic on the M25 and where that had got us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the business before us concerns the financing and liabilities of the new towns named in the order. I hope that he will return to that matter.

Mr. Hawksley: It might help my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) if I inform the House that the figures forecast for Telford 20 years ago were double the current figures. The estimation was out by more than 100 per cent.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, as always, shows a perspicacity and sagacity for which he is well known in the House. It is a matter of regret to many of my hon. Friends that Government forecasting is so lamentably bad.

Mr. Leigh: They cannot even get the weather right.

Mr. Soames: That is true. Government forecasting is a matter of some concern.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to settle the mind of the House on this matter. I hope that he can say that his confidence reposes in the figures for financial reconstruction embodied in the order, formulated by projection of income and expenditure over the next 20 years.
We are now told that this exercise has been carried out with the co-operation of the corporations and that the results have been analysed by consultants commissioned by the Department of the Environment. I have to say, with great regret, that it was consultants commissioned by the Department of Transport who made such an awful mess of the figures for the M25. What confidence can my hon. Friend the Minister have in figures for the new towns put forward by consultants? Is he satisfied that there will not be another order in the House in 20 years' time — I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is concerned about this—asking for another huge sum of


money to write off these forecasts, especially when, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) said, previously they have been 100 per cent. wrong?
It is alleged that these measures will provide a sound financial basis for the corporations during their remaining lives. How often have we heard the expression "sound financial basis" in this House? How many industries, enterprises and businesses controlled or administered by the state or its organisations have we been told would provide a sound financial basis? We were told that about De Lorean, Rolls-Royce in the bad old days, British Shipbuilders and British Leyland. Yet who but the taxpayers living in our constituencies has had to keep shelling out money time after time?

Mr. Jack Straw: You can afford it.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman glibly suggests that we can afford it — we cannot afford it. It was Opposition Members who recently tabled a motion to give a 52 per cent. increase in secretarial allowances—

Mr. Straw: When I said "you", I was in the second person singular. I was referring directly to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Soames: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not hear that. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is also my friend, might like to discuss that with me later. Indeed, I know that he is a beady-eyed steward keeping a careful watch on every penny of public money that is spent. He is responsible for the scrutiny of that money in this House. I am sure he will agree that it has been said many times in this House, and claimed by Ministers of all Governments, that certain organisations and enterprises provided a sound financial basis for the corporations during their remaining lives.

Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend remember that when his distinguished father was an hon. Member of this House rather than of another place there was another scheme which, I think was conceived by the Labour party and called the groundnuts scheme—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in this irresponsible way in making irrelevant observations. Let us return to the order.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my opening preamble I said that I had asked for the debate to be taken on the Floor of the House and hoped that Conservative Members would not abuse that decision. It is now absolutely clear that my request is being wholly ignored and that the debate is being reduced to an unacceptable level. Conservative Members for reasons only known to themselves—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not persist. I have got the measure of the position. He can leave the chairing of the House this afternoon to me.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To tell you the truth, I had rather forgotten the thread of my argument. I was in the middle of a major disquisition on the stewardship of public funds when suddenly there jumped up from the Opposition Front Bench an objector. I do not regard lightly the writing off of £1,750 billion of taxpayers' money. The hon. Gentleman rightly insisted that the matter should be debated on the Floor of the

House because it is important. If he thinks that it is being treated with levity, he is wanting both in judgment and in the quality of his observations.
It was always envisaged that the corporations' revenue deficits would continue for the early years of development, but that in due course they could achieve break even and be able to redeem their borrowing. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin rightly pointed out in the case of Telford, those forecasts were more than 100 per cent. inaccurate. What confidence does my hon. Friend the Minister repose in the figures implied in the order? The House will demand a proper answer. By the time the order returns, my hon. Friend will be in the Cabinet, but I hope that whoever fills his job in 10 years' time will not have to stand at the Dispatch Box and take the same stick on this matter from, God willing, my lion. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, myself and other hon. Friends here assembled this morning.
Other hon. Members wish to participate. The new towns and the Commission for the New Towns have been a remarkable success. Nothing that we say about the financial side of the order should in any way alter the debt of gratitude that the country owes to those who with vision set up the new towns, bringing immense prosperity and a force for good into the United Kingdom. In these islands there are many towns which could greatly benefit from the Commission for the New Towns coming with overarching authority to sweep aside all the useless objections raised by reactionary, revisionist local authorities against any form of development or expansion and to build, develop and expand—with all the verve and vigour of south; and with enthusiasm and desire — a bright new Jerusalem in our inner cities. There could be no finer body to do that than the new towns movement, but it is not for the House, the steward and guardian of public funds, to allow the write-off of £1,750 billion in the flicker of an eyelid or with a snap of the fingers. The taxpayer will be done out of more than £1 billion.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity, as a Member of Parliament for a new town, to speak in the debate. My constituency is very fortunate, and we are grateful for the benefits that were conferred upon us. However, my constituents will not be pleased if today we approve an order which means that they will have to pay heavy debts for the hard work, enterprise and drive that they have put into developing Crawley, while Warrington and Runcorn, Peterborough, Telford and Milton Keynes will have their liabilities written off. What would Dr. Johannes Witteveen have said had he been here?

Mr. Eric Forth: It is appropriate that I should follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), because I wish to echo some of the points that he made and expand on some of his thoughts. We are all aware—especially those of us who have the honour to represent constituencies with new towns—of the enormous contribution made by the new towns since the war. I hesitate to use the term used earlier by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) when he spoke about the new town movement. There is a tendency to attribute the word "movement" to anything, certainly on the Left of politics. One might say, "If it moves, call it a movement."
The development of new towns since the war has been remarkable. They have made a remarkable contribution to the social and economic life and to the development of a new form of social existence. When my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, he mentioned the financial reconstruction that the order involves. That has rightly caused much anxiety among my hon. Friends as to the aim and purpose of the reconstruction and what might lie behind it.
I do not propose to go too far down that road, but I shall illustrate by reference to Redditch in Worcestershire the fact that we are somewhat uneasy about the development of new towns in the future. Some of us wish to know whether the new towns will continue indefinitely, or whether it may be more realistic —my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley was moving in this direction in his eloquent remarks— to say that the new towns have fulfilled their purpose and that it is time for a rapid end to them.

Mr. Soames: If I had the power to sustain a speech for as long as and in such depth I know that my hon. Friend can, I would have developed my argument along his lines. We must develop a hybrid between the Commission for the New Towns, the new towns corporations and the London Docklands development corporation, which has proved so outstandingly successful. These attitudes and skills—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the London Docklands development corporation comes within the framework of the order. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) will not respond to that suggestion.

Mr. Forth: Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my hon. Friend has, as usual, put his finger on a key point.
Redditch represents the transition from development corporation to the role of the commission. We want to know what the Minister has in mind for the development of new towns. Although the development corporations have played a magnificent role in the past, and made a wonderful contribution, the transition to the rule of the commission may not bring the sort of development that we want, because it does not contain the commercial element which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley implied in the remarks which I shall not repeat.
Redditch is a classic case. Like all the new towns referred to in the order, it started with the kernel of an established community. One can trace back the origins of Redditch many centuries, and the town has a worldwide reputation for its needle industry. After being set up in the 1960s, the new town moved rapidly from being a sleepy midlands town with a population of 20,000 to a centre with a population of 75,000. There was a remarkable development of housing, landscaping and infrastructure and the new town is a fine example of the genre.

Mr. Leigh: Is it still in debt?

Mr. Forth: That issue is not strictly relevant, as I shall explain. The relevant point is the transition of the new town and whether it should go into the hands of the Commission for the New Towns or, as some of us would prefer, move to full privatisation. I use that term without blushing. The Opposition have said many times today that

there is a deep, dark secret and a sinister plot to privatise new towns. There is nothing of the sort. I hope that the Minister will confirm that privatisation is precisely what we have in mind. Surely that would be the culmination of the development of the new towns.

Mr. Gow: I know of my hon. Friend's keen interest in the European Commission and I wonder whether he will answer the point which was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). Do we need the consent of Lord Cockfield before the order can be approved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is doing again what I have already warned him about. I hope that he will not persist.

Mr. Forth: Far be it from me to attempt to advise such a constitutional expert as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), but I suggest that it is unlikely that the European Commission will have to be involved. I hope that recent constitutional developments will not lead us down that path, and I am fairly confident that what has happened in this House will not take us in that direction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's speech will not take us in that direction either.

Mr. Forth: Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have many other points to make and you will be glad to hear that none of them relates to the EEC.
We should pause to consider why the new towns have been so successful. There has been much speculation, but I believe that, based on the experience of Redditch, I can give the House the answer. The first reason was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who covered so many points in his eloquent contribution, though, as he said, he was forced, in the interests of brevity, to curtail his remarks and was not able to explore some matters as fully as he wished.
I pick up a theme that my hon. Friend initiated and suggest that one reason for the success of the new towns was the powers vested in them from the outset. They were able to proceed with great speed in developing housing, infrastructures and roads, without resort to the usual planning procedures.

Mr. Soames: In considering the order and the winding up of liabilities, does my hon. Friend agree that the spirit of enterprise that the new towns brought could and should be applied with ease to other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Forth: Yes, but I must sound a note of caution as my hon. Friend's enthusiasm that all should share the benefits conferred by the new towns involves an underlying danger. It is relevant to the debate because in moving towards the winding up of the new towns and considering the future we must examine the balance to be struck between the democratic accountability of our current planning regulations and the way in which the new towns have been allowed to develop without strict democratic accountability. The benefits in terms of speedy decision making and determination by those with a vision of what they want to develop are achieved at the cost of a lack of the accountability and democratic control that we expect in our normal planning procedures.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall that not long ago Redditch development corporation, in his constituency,


attempted to sell 20 per cent. of its total area—to Tarmac, I believe—but the proposal was turned down by the Department of the Environment? Has my hon. Friend any comment to make about that in relation to the extinguishment of debt covered by the order?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has a remarkable grasp and knowledge of these matters even when they are in my constituency rather than his. He has raised a relevant point. I regretted the Department's decision because the development corporation seemed to me to be seeking at one leap to achieve a remarkable development in the privatisation of the new town but was frustrated by the Department of the Environment. I shall not go further into that as it would embarrass the Government as well as my hon. Friend and myself to say too much about it in public, but I agree with the sense of my hon. Friend's question.
The second reason for the remarkable success of the new towns has been the amount of funding available. Members have expressed understandable concern at the amounts involved and the opaqueness of the order. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up the debate he will be able to throw much more light on what lies behind the very large sums contained but not explained in the proposal. The key to the success of the new towns has been that large sums of public money have been made available without the accountability that we would normally expect from public bodies dispensing public funds, and I am grateful for the benefits that this has brought to Redditch.
I welcome any hon. Member who wishes to come and see the town. It is beautifully laid out, the roads are well planned and landscaping has been carried out at no expense—2 million trees have been planted since the town began to develop — not to mention the infrastructure implications, to which I shall return. It is easy to achieve developments of that kind if there is no direct accountability for the expenditure of large sums of public money. The new towns have shown the facility to channel enormous sums of public money without accountability or visibility to produce a desired result, but whether we wish to go that way in the future is a much bigger question and germane to today's debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House what the Government have in mind for the future of the new towns.
The third element in identifying the reasons for the success of the new towns is what I would call representation without democracy. I will explain what I mean by that. On all the development corporations of the new towns we have appointed representatives, boards with paid or part-time members, and appointed representatives from the local community in the time-honoured way to which we in Britain are all accumstomed. But one thing that those people were not, excellent though they were and excellent though their record of public service was, and representative in a sense though they may have been, were democratically elected members.
That immediately draws a distinction between the role of the new towns and their commissions and corporations, on the one hand, and local government and local authorities, as we have understood them for many centuries, on the other. Again, one must draw the paradoxical distinction between the effectiveness and efficiency of undemocratic but representative bodies and democratically accountable local authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the substance of the order. We are discussing not the political structure of local government but the liabilities of certain new towns.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me that in my enthusiasn I must not get carried too far from the point. However, I was making my point in the context of the future that lies beyond the order when it is approved by the House. We are all hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us guidance on that matter when he replies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Minister will do what I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do, and that is to address himself to what is in the order and not the future political or financial structure of new towns.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not be further tempted.
We have seen the remarkable record of success of the new towns. My hon. Friend the Minister has today asked us for a financial reconstruction so that the new towns named in the order may proceed with their development. We are willing to give him our support today, but he must understand from what I and many of my hon. Friends have said that there is some reservation in our support for the measure. We wish to be satisfied about the direction in which the Government wish to take the new towns and the extent to which they are aware of the need for strict accountability in the use of public money in the further development of the new towns.
It is on that thought and that issue that I wish to conclude my remarks in the hope that we shall be given all the assurances that we require from my hon. Friend today with regard to what he intends for the future, the extent to which he believes there will be accountability in the future and in the strictness with which I hope he and his Department will be looking at the matter as it unfolds and develops.

Mr. William Cash: My constituency of Stafford is close to Telford, which is the subject of one of the provisions in the order. As a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments I had the responsibility to consider this statutory instrument a short time ago. I was somewhat surprised to see the liabilities which were being extinguished, amounting, as we know, to £1,687 million in round figures.
The problem is simply that a huge new town with an enterprise zone attached to it, with an accumulated debt on the scale that has developed over the years since the incorporation of the new town, has areas adjacent to it that are, as it were, in a vacuum and they feel a significant draught if the financing of the new town is in any way artificial.
If liabilities, on the scale that is set out in the order, are extinguished, as they will be, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that those of us who live in towns which are more self-financing than, for example, towns which have not significantly increased their rates — other then the precept from the county council, another and very sad tale — should be given all the protection that the Department of the Environment can give so that the order does not bear heavily on a place such as Stafford. The problems in new towns are well documented. Some of my


constituents work in Telford. I praise the staff and the chairman of the development corporation although some criticisms have been voiced today. They have conducted themselves in the interests of the local people.
I am deeply suspicious of social engineering. Many of the people in Telford come from Birmingham. Large sums were required to support the movement of the population from Birmingham to Telford. That expenditure and movement was necessary because of the deep-rooted inner urban problems caused by degeneration and decay. Those problems could be sorted out only by the visionary arrangements activated in the 1940s which enabled people to have a decent standard of living. The idea was to make available homes near jobs. That is directly related to the sums that are now to be written off and it is one of the crucial factors that underpins the new towns. We must be responsible in the way in which we debate the subject.
Some serious questions arise from the order. The allegation is that there is a conspiracy by the wicked Tories to pull the rug from under the feet of the new towns, to dismantle and to throw to the winds the good work that has been done. The extinguishment of the liabilities in the order, remembering the reservations I have expressed, provides an opportunity for people who are moving into a new enterprise era to take a stake in the new town.
The opportunity should be taken, when a new town is reaching fulfilment, to disengage from social engineering, which might have had a valid beginning. I recognise the social needs that made social engineering necessary. Bournville is a good example. It has created a mixture of enterprise and philanthropy, the hallmark of the Quaker tradition which I have mentioned in other speeches. It was one of the great developments of the 19th century.
I am vice-chairman of the Conservative Small Business Bureau so I take an interest in the development of enterprise and small businesses. We must try to provide people with jobs and small businesses, with homes nearby. We should now be able to disengage from social engineering and enable people to buy their own homes and to set up small businesses. If the extinguishment of the debts will enable the Telford development corporation to balance the books so that those twin objectives can be achieved the spirit of enterprise will be enhanced and there will be more opportunities for job creation, particularly jobs for young people in the Telford area.
I should refer briefly to the Ironbridge Gorge Musuem trust. The issue of debt and liability impinges upon the trust, which is a national museum. I hope that the Minister will pay some tribute to it and give some sign of his Department's thinking on the subject. I happen to be a member for the board of the charity, and I had been in that position for many years before I became a Member for this place. It has a status that requires recognition.
Many of the discussions that have been taking place relate directly to the provisions that are set out in the order. I do not know which T item it refers to, but I am convinced that there are aspects of the Ironbridge museum that are related directly to one of the enumerated Ts in the order.
A coincidence that has just occurred to me is that Abraham Darby and the Quakers did not rely on public funds. Instead, they relied upon their own endeavours and enterprise. They created the industrial revolution, which the museum represents. The extinguishment of the public

debts which is represented by the order is related directly and historically to the beginnings of private enterprise in that vicinity. As we disengage from and wind up the new towns, especially Telford, I hope that we shall have regard to the origins of the area itself. If we wish to develop new jobs, small businesses and a sense of enterprise with people able to live in the countryside reasonably near to their place of work, the extinguishment of the debt will, without doubt, enable these objectives to be achieved.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to refer to my visit to Naples yesterday as a member of the Select Committee on European legislation. This is not part of a filibuster or anything of that sort. The evidence that we have of the extinguishment of liability in Italy provides something from which we can learn in relation to the order.
The reason for the disengagement from and extinguishing of the liabilities is related directly to the fact that in the 1950s and 1960s we had peculiar boom conditions. They were boom conditions of a rather artificial kind because much of the money involved was borrowed from abroad. Money was made available, however, on a significant scale and a significant amount of debt was accumulated. The first and second generations of new towns were able to be more or less self-financing and were wound up without accumulated liabilities which they could not repay. That is not the position of the third generation, of which Telford happens to be one.
I said earlier when my hon. Friend the Minister was speaking that it would be misleading to say that the whole of the Telford area is one of dereliction. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not intend to give that impression. The opposite is true and Telford is a beautiful part of the country. The problems with which it was faced in the Dawley area were significant. They were underestimated by a number of people, including, I regret to say, a book that I would recommend to those interested in new towns. The book by Meryl Aldridge, is entitled, "The British New Towns—A programme without a policy". It stated that Mr. Richard Crossman said of Dawley, in his diaries:
Money could have been no object in mind"—
he quoted Evelyn Sharp's mind—
since it will cost a fortune to turn this into a modern urban area".
That appears at page 307 of the 1975 diaries. The book continued:
an observation which has particular piquancy in view of Lady Sharp's own insistence that new towns should be chosen in the light of their potential for economic success".
Richard Crossman identified, no doubt accurately, the fact that when the new towns were developed serious problems were inherent in Dawley and Telford which are intrinsic to the order. He predicted, quite accurately, which apparently Evelyn Sharp did not, that a vast amount of money was tied up in the proposal and that it would cause no end of difficulty. As a result, we must extinguish debts that were accumulated on a massive scale.

Mr. Dalyell: Evelyn Sharp was extremely concerned about the use of money in a number of new towns. She had a rather motherly attitude towards them. I have the greatest admiration for Evelyn Sharp as an extremely distinguished civil servant. She cared deeply about new towns. I was PPS to Dick Crossman. He cared very much about democracy in new towns. That was a real problem.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that he did not make the point in a critical way


but wished to put it on the record. I agree entirely with what he said. It is difficult to calculate the amount of money needed for what I believe was an important objective and to ensure that the money was properly funded from the beginning.
I think that the accountancy arrangements, the investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department and the provisions of the 1985 Act on accountancy will be critical when the new towns are wound up. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was the Minister—I regret that he is not in the House to take note of the point—who introduced the Bill. I see a serious problem in the present Act regarding the final accountancy arrangements for winding up the new towns. A wide discretion is given as to the manner in which the calculations will be made and the auditing will he done when the towns wind up their financial arrangements. If the towns get that wrong—there have been many criticisms of the order and the lack of information available—it will be deeply regretted. We must operate our public expenditure on the basis of sound financial expenditure.

Mr. Edward Leigh: This has been a long debate. As at least one of my hon. Friends wishes to speak, I shall confine my remarks and make them shorter than I had intended. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). He has great experience in such matters. He spoke in glowing terms about the achievements of Milton Keynes. He seemed to welcome the order. I wish to take issue with his speech and the tenor of his remarks.
The new town concept is the product of the "brave new world" vision of the original Fabians, but they could never have foreseen some of the debt problems which would arise and which we are debating. As my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) reminded the House, we are talking about a serious issue. Although this is a Friday and the House is thinly attended, we are talking about the extinguishment of £1·7 billion of public money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who represents a first generation new town, rightly said that his constituents were being disadvantaged by the order. Although they had repaid their debt on time, the second generation of new towns had not. He spoke movingly of the problems that would arise for his constituents.
The explanatory notes with the order told us of the difficulties that the second generation of new towns have met, which explains the need for the order. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), who represents Telford is in his seat. He told us of some of the problems caused because the population projections had proved inaccurate. The explanatory notes told us also that, although the first generation of new towns grew up in the boom years of the 1960s, the second generation faced many more problems in the depression years of the 1970s and, therefore, the task facing second and third generation new towns was in many respects much more onerous. I accept all that and the reasons why the order is before us, but that experience of Milton Keynes and the second generation new towns should be a bitter warning and

should guide Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, in directing public policies.
Because of the lessons of the 1960s, when we perhaps did not take adequate steps to guard against unforeseen events, the Government have to provide a realistic debt structure for the new towns. The order will enable the Government to give a coherent, measured corporate planning structure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes talked in glowing terms of what Milton Keynes had achieved. He seemed to think that the order would give the Government and the nation an opportunity to think in terms of widening the spirit of the new towns away from the Fabian concept of moving the population from the overcrowded inner cities to greenfield sites. My hon. Friend felt that the order could be a precursor to setting up development boards along the lines of the London Docklands Development Corporation, to regenerate our inner cities.
Of course, this is an attractive prospect. There are large derelict areas in many regions, especially in the north in our industrial cities. When I was a member of the Greater London council, I was involved in London overspill schemes. I now represent a town—Gainsborough—which was a London overspill town. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we had to pick up the pieces from the planning policies of the late 1940s and early 1950s. We had to pick up the pieces of a great city like London which, to a certain extent, had been denuded of resources in terms of people and industry. Industry had gone to the new towns of, for example, Harlow, Welwyn Garden City and Milton Keynes. There is no doubt that that is why the new town concept has gone out of fashion. In looking carefully at the order and to the future and in considering the extinguishment of £1·7 billion of public money, we should pause to draw breath. We should remember the lesson of the past.

Mr. Timothy Wood: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I must get on. Rather than talking glibly of the taxpayer coming to the rescue of the new towns we should be looking at ways in which, in directing our policy for the future, we can think not in terms of financing the towns with rented housing but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said, looking ahead at privatisation and using private money so that, in 10 or 15 years, we are not left with the problem we are debating today.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I am grateful to the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. It has been an instructive morning listening to my hon. Friends seeking answers from our own Front Bench. I will not say as much as I had hoped because I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister has sufficient time to answer the questions that have been put.
Last night I took the draft statutory instrument home with me so that I could look at it. I thought that it would make interesting reading before bedtime. As is my custom, I went to bed with my reading and I put aside my new Jeffrey Archer book and read the order instead. I was bitterly disappointed. It was not the good read that I had hoped. However, it does have some similarities with the novels of Jeffrey Archer. The figures involved are as


astronomical. In fact, the figures involved are almost as large as those Mr. Archer earns from his books. It is important that we get some answers today about what the figures represent.
If these figures represent paying for public infrastructure—roads, hospitals and schools—it is reasonable that they should be met from public funds and that we should be able to write them off. It could be argued that the taxpayer would have received good value for money. However, if the figures represent money for building shopping centres and housing which will be sold or transferred to the local authority, we should know about it. If that is the case, the money should be going back to the Treasury and not being written off. It is important for the good name of the new towns movement in this country.
The new towns movement is the envy of the world. I speak as someone who, before I came here, taught town planning, for my sins. Visitors from around the world are singularly impressed by Britain's achievement in moving the population, en masse, from what were slums at the end of the second world war into good, new housing with all the social facilities that went with it.

Mr. Wood: Representing Stevenage as I do and having been involved with Bracknell in the past, I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there are some new towns that have been able to generate a substantial return for the Government. Therefore, in financial terms, some new towns have done very well. Not only has one had the social advantage of the new towns and the employment prospects, but there has been a financial return from some new towns.

Dr. Twinn: My hon. Friend is quite right. The first generation of new towns worked very well. In fact, what we call the first generation, which were built from public funds after the second world war, are really the second generation. The first generation rose from private enterprise. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister will be tempting us to go down that line in the future with more private enterprise. The Ebenezer Howard idea of private capital being invested in new towns is a masterly idea. The idea of pouring vast sums of public money into new towns was a good idea in the post-war years because we had to reconstruct. We also had low interest rates, which helped the first generation of new towns make a return on their capital.
The third generation of new towns came along after the oil crisis and it was then that the problems really started. They had to borrow over long periods at high interest rates and they got into a terrible muddle, not knowing whether they were starting to get a return. They carried on borrowing. In the end, knowing that they were not getting anywhere near breaking even, the Government found it necessary to intervene. Along with other of my hon. Friends, I welcome the Government's action. It is important that we put the finances of the new towns on a firm footing, so that we can go forward. We do not want to stop the progress of the new towns. We want the idea of the new towns and the development corporations to roll on, develop, and to continue meeting the needs of our country. To fossilise it and let them carry on with a debt

burden that they are unable to service would have been irresponsible. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on their action.
I have my personal doubts about the success of the new towns, in a sense. I represent an outer London area— Edmonton—which has been the victim of the magnetic attraction of the new towns. They have drawn away the population. They drew away the young, skilled, mobile work force from my constituency, and with it went the jobs. They were tempted, or bribed, to the new towns around London. My constituency has suffered from the new town policy. I do not object to that because it was in the long-term interest of this country as a whole. Of course, that is what we must be concerned with in the House.
Before I sit down and let my hon. Friend answer the points that have been raised in the debate, I should like to make a plea for more openness of information from the new towns. There has been a singular lack of openness from the Government today on the draft statutory instrument. I shall not labour the point; other of my hon. Friends have made it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to reply to the points that have been made.
The new towns have been a byword for secrecy. There is now a movement for local government—we have to include the new towns as a variety of localised government —to throw open its doors and provide information for the citizens in the area. I hope that my hon. Friend, while keeping in order, will talk about openness in the new towns.
I welcome today's debate. It has been a valuable debate, perhaps more valuable and useful than my hon. Friend had intended. Nevertheless, I hope that, on reflection, he will think that this morning has been well worth while. We look forward eagerly to his reply.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Boyes: I listened with great care to the debate, which has lasted more than four hours. However, I am concerned about the flippancy with which an order with such strong political undertones has been treated by some Conservative Members. Some have abused the privilege of the opportunity to debate the order on the Floor of the House. This morning we have been talking about writing off almost 1·7 billion. The matter deserves the utmost seriousness from all hon. Members. The flippancy of Conservative Members suggests to some Opposition Members that they simply do not care.
I should like to ask some specific questions. If the Minister is unable to answer all of them immediately, I shall be happy to receive answers in writing in due course. Is he aware of any other orders in the pipeline that will extinguish the liabilities of any other new towns? Will he produce more details about the sums of money referred to in the order, as requested in a written question tabled by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) earlier this week?
With regard to the winding up of the development corporation and the transfer of housing and community-related assets, previous transfers have taken place with no loss and no gain for either side.
Where surveys have shown that there are undue deficiencies in the condition of the housing, will they be put right before any transfer of assets from the new towns? Will local authorities be given resources so that they can continue to attract tenants to buildings that have been vacated by industrialists when the development corporations are wound up? As the Minister and those of us who live in and represent the new towns are aware, there is a large scale turnover of industrial buildings in many new towns.
Many development corporations run social development offices. Will funds be made available by district councils, county councils or other appropriate local authorities to allow that initiative to continue?
Finally, where local authorities have taken over housing stock from district councils, they are finding that the promised adjustments in HIP allocation have not been made—indeed, some are receiving a lower allocation of HIP. I hope that the Minister will look at that matter. I accept that the Minister may not be able to answer all my points, so I should be grateful if he would reply in writing.

Mr. Tracey: It is well known that new town measures have a reputation for producing an interesting, wide-ranging debate. Today's debate has certainly been no exception. It has been wide-ranging and some interesting questions have been asked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), in good spirit, pulled my leg about my better known responsibilities for sport. Of course, as he knows well, I am here today as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibility, together with my noble Friend the Minister of State, for new towns. On the sporting angle, today's debate has at times felt a little like an orienteering exercise as it has weaved around. At times I thought I might be taking part in the Fastnet race.
As you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our concern today is somewhat narrowly focused on the financial reconstruction of the four new town development corporations with substantial development tasks ahead of them — Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Telford, and Warrington and Runcorn. Perhaps I should reiterate what I said in my opening remarks—that during the debate on the 1985 Act it was recognised that this sort of restructuring should continue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House thought that an extremely sensible exercise.
During the debate hon. Members have raised a number of points related to the order, and some of my hon. Friends made more general points. I shall try to respond to some of them, but if I cannot do so because of time constraints or because of lack of detailed answers I shall reply in writing.
The current financial regime needs explanation. I thought that I had explained it during my opening remarks, but it appears that some of my hon. Friends did not think so. The new towns' principal source of finance has been borrowing from the Treasury. That has meant that not only the new investment requirements of the development corporations but revenue deficits have had to be financed by borrowing. It is in the nature of this regime,

rather than out of any desire to obscure the issues, that I say that it is not possible to identify individual advances as having been made to finance specific activities. That point was raised forcefully by my hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) and for Eastbourne. On reflection, they probably know that the development corporations' borrowing represents their corporate financing requirement, not a series of specific investment decisions. I hope that that explains why both in the details of the order and in the Department's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin we could not give details on the specific advances. We can give the times at which advances have been made to finance the corporate requirements of particular new towns, and in the case of my hon. Friend that is Telford.
Another point discussed at great length by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was the difference between the first and second columns of the order. Column 1 shows the amount of money advanced to the corporations when they asked for it and column 2—my hon. Friend had fun with this—shows the sum remaining to be repaid at 31 August 1986. The simplest explanation is to say that, rather like a mortgage, little principal is repaid in the first years when the advance is outstanding. These are all loans for 60 years, which is much longer than the period of the average mortgage. I hope that that explains the simple difference between the two columns.

Mr. Soames: Can my hon. Friend say on what basis the interest charges are calculated? Surely they are not fixed for 60 years. When changes are made to the interest charges, are they authorised on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Tracey: The interest charges on a particular advance are fixed. That was another point made in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about a week ago.
There has been some criticism of the position. It appears that with almost 1·7 billion of debt the new towns have got into a mess. There are various reasons for the apparent financial problems, the most important of which is the sheer financial burden of providing infrastructure and amenities, especially in the later new towns. The Government were, understandably, determined to provide a high standard to avoid the feeling of what might be called new town blues. A further important factor is location. It was reasonably easy to make something of a surplus in a town near London with pre-existing good communications during a period of steady economic growth. The later new towns on green field sites needed a great deal of infrastructure, which did not already exist, and by the time that was created economic growth had been slower.
With hindsight, we can see that the original new town financial model was somewhat over-optimistic. The important thing now is to put matters right and to get them on to a sound financial footing which will serve for the remaining period.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said that the Government had sinister intentions that might lead to privatisation. We make no bones about the fact that we wish to see the greatest possible amount of private investment in the new towns. What would the hon. Gentleman have done in these circumstances? Would he have allowed the towns to obtain this vast amount of debt? I had thought that the Opposition were fairly agreeable when the idea of restructuring was mooted.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin complained that he was unable to obtain sufficient information from Telford new town. He may have some cause for complaint, but he recently met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and discussed the matter at great length. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to write to him about several points. Perhaps he should await the reply. His point about the Nedge hill area of Telford would be better dealt with in my right hon. Friend's letter. I should have thought that my hon. Friend could have obtained much of the general information, including investment and development in Telford, from a close examination of the new town's report and accounts.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin also mentioned the chairman of Telford new town corporation, Lord Northfield. My hon. Friend was worried about the fact that Lord Northfield is also chairman of Consortium Development. At the beginning of the year, we considered the potential conflict of interest and we concluded that, as Consortium Development operates in the south-east, and Lord Northfield is not personally involved in land negotiations at Telford, no conflict of interest arises. I record the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the point again, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will answer it in his letter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) asked about the accountability of the development corporations. Like the Commission for the New Towns, they are fully accountable. The accounts in the annual reports are audited by external auditors appointed by the Secretary of State and they are reported on by the auditors. That is clear from the reports of the new towns. The Government examine closely those reports and the projects placed before us before deciding that annual budgets of the corporations. As my hon. Friend will know, we are also considering extending the competence of the ombudsman to examine new town affairs. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes that development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) paid tribute in a typically robust and well-argued speech to the contributions of the new towns, but sounded sad when he suggested that Crawley had been treated unfairly compared with the four new towns mentioned in the order. I refer him to what I said about the greater ease with which Crawley had been able to develop a surplus and repay its debts. I pay tribute to what has been done in Crawley. I know that my hon. Friend is a force in encouraging the greatest possible efficiency and development of enterprise in the town.
My hon. Friend asked me about the forecasts for the four new towns and others. Our forecasts were prepared by the development corporations, but they were analysed by highly professional consultants appointed by the

Government, so we have subjected the forecasts to careful scrutiny and analysed their sensitivity to a range of assumptions about rental income, investment levels, and so on. As my hon. Friend said, forecasting is not an exact science, but I am satisfied that we have the best possible forecasts.
A number of hon. Members mentioned specific places within the new towns. My hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) asked about the future of the Ironbridge Gorge museum after 1991. The future of the museum is under consideration and my noble Friend the Minister responsible for planning visited it early in July when discussions took place. The Department's officials have had further discussions with the officers of the museum trust and there will be more discussions. We intend to find a way to safeguard the future of this excellent museum which records so well the development of our industrial heritage.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin also asked me about the Telford ice rink. The development corporation provided for a rink in the town centre and it was understood at the time that, on completion, ownership of the ice rink would be transferred to The Wrekin district council and that the corporation would make no contribution to remaining costs, including any revenue deficit. As the Minister responsible for sport, I think that the provision of an ice rink, as a major public amenity in Telford, is a good thing and I am sure that it has been welcomed by the people of the town.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne asked about the Texas Homecare store in Milton Keynes. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) mentioned the £1 billion of private investment in that excellent new town, and the Texas store is part of that. The development corporation made provision for infrastructure, such as the roads and the mains services around the store. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, who raised the subject of housing transfer in Telford, will know from my answer to a question from him in March that the Government are determined to seek alternatives to direct transfer to local authorities. At present, we are engaged in close consultation in Telford and other new towns on this very point. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we shall continue discussions to find the best possible way forward.
I think that I have dealt with all the points raised, but I will write to any hon. Member whose question has not been answered. The new towns programme is now nearing completion, but there are still important tasks to be completed. I believe that the financial reconstruction will help to take us forward in the best and most businesslike way. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft New Towns (Extinguishment of Liabilities) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

West London Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the future of the West London hospital, which is extensively used by many residents of my constituency, although it is located just outside the boundary in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who has fully supported my concern and would have wished to be here today but for other commitments. It is appropriate that this debate should take place today as a consultation paper is expected to be published today by the district health authority proposing the closure of the West London hospital in November 1987.
It is important that the House should be aware of the context of that consultation paper. It is being produced by a district health authority which has been told to make cuts of some £33 million in a budget of £120 million by 1993–94—a reduction in expenditure of no less than 27 per cent. That is no reflection of lack of need in the area, which has huge unmet needs—an aging population, long and lengthening waiting lists for many operations and many people suffering poverty and deprivation. Against that background, the National Health Service should be expanding and developing to meet needs more effectively, rather than being told to make swingeing cuts in the budget which illustrate all too clearly the dishonesty of the Government's claim that the Health Service is safe in their hands. The people of Fulham and Hammersmith are well aware how hollow and untrue that claim is. In the face of such cuts in hospital services, the Health Service in West London is far from safe in the Government's hands.
The West London hospital currently incorporates four main units. The obstetrics unit has a national reputation for a very high standard of care. Among women it has a reputation for providing a service that is sensitive to their needs and aspirations, and it has been in the forefront in promoting natural childbirth. There is also a special baby care unit with a particularly high standard of neonatal care —a factor contributing to the good reputation of the area in terms of perinatal mortality, for which the figures are among the lowest in Britain and, indeed, in western Europe. The plan in the consultation paper involves closure of the hospital and loss of the obstetrics unit without replacement, and thus the destruction of one of the country's best maternity units.
Secondly, the geriatric unit provides long-term care for about 50 elderly patients. This unit has done important work in developing understanding and a close relationship between staff and patients. Many of the patients suffer from senile dementia, requiring intensive care and needing to develop trust and confidence in the people looking after them.
The third unit is the psycho-geriatric assessment unit providing 16 beds and also associated day care. The fourth is the genito-urinary unit, which is doing extremely important work in one of the most difficult areas of medicine and, indeed, is currently one of the first places of referral for a substantial number of people suffering from AIDS in Britain. The importance of that work should not be underestimated.
Apart from the four units provided by the hospital, there is also an associated nurses home, Abercorn House, which is providing accommodation for 90 nurses in an area where there is a desperate need because high house prices and exceptionally high rents make it difficult for nursing staff to afford to live. That in turn creates acute problems for hospitals, one of which, the Charing Cross hospital, has encountered considerable difficulty in maintaining its wards because of the absence of nursing staff who simply cannot afford to live in the area.
The proposal in the consultation paper suggests the relocatin of some of those units. The psycho-geriatric and genito-urinary units would be relocated, essentially at Charing Cross hospital, and I would not quarrel in principle with that. It is appropriate that those units should be on a district general hospital site, and the standard of provision could well be improved there.
The geriatric department will be replaced under the proposals with two small-scale nursing homes. Again that is not necessarily wrong in principle, but there are serious potential problems. In the first place, there must be an anxiety about the timetable — whether the new units, which have not yet been begun, could possibly be completed and ready for occupation by November 1987, the date set for the closure of the West London hospital.
Secondly, what will happen in terms of the disruption of the care of the elderly people, whose trust in thieir nurses has been painstakingly built up over a period? We should remember that we are talking only of replacing beds that will be lost. Yet we know that there is an urgent additional need for extra beds, particularly for respite care to help many carers who look after elderly relatives and who desperately need the opportunity to place their relatives in a caring environment so that they can get away for a week or two weeks' holiday from time to time. Those are the units that will, to an extent, be replaced under the proposal. I want now to deal with those that will not.
The nurses home will be lost, and that will be a loss of desperately needed accommodation in the area. The obstetrics unit will be lost without replacement under the proposal. That is clearly motivated by a wish to make savings. There can be no other possible explanation of why that has been put forward. The consultation paper suggests that that will provide savings of approximately £2,250,000 out of the total projected revenue savings coming from the closure of the hospital of £2,750,000. So the lion's share of the total savings is attributable to the closure of the obstetrics unit without replacement.
What possible justification can there be for doing this? It may be argued that the West London hospital building is old, in need of maintenance and repair. It is an old building. It has a long and distinguished history going back 126 years, during which time the hospital has been located on this site. However, I hasten to add that there have been many additions and improvements to the building during that time. It is not simply a building that dates back to the 1860s.
Everyone who has been there or who has accompanied patients there knows what is really important is not its bricks and mortar but the standard of care. The West London hospital's reputation is without equal in that respect. It has an immensely high standard of care and concern for patients. It is also one of those smaller hospitals which can achieve a more friendly and intimate environment than is possible in larger hospitals.
The physical fabric of the hospital might justify the relocation of the unit elsewhere, but it certainly does not justify the closure of that unit without replacement.
What other justification could be advanced for the closure of the unit? Undoubtedly the claim will be advanced—I suspect the Minister has been briefed to this effect—that there is
an over-provision of maternity beds in the district".
Such a claim can be substantiated only by a juggling of the statistics to suit the argument. There are only two maternity units in hospitals managed by the district health authority—Westminster hospital and the West London hospital. Between them they provide for about 3,000 births a year—about 2,000 at the West London hospital and about 1,000 at Westminster hospital. The birth rate for the Riverside area is about 3,500 and the forecast, based upon a midpoint projection, is about 3,700 a year.
Local needs can be met adequately only because of the two other maternity units, which do not come under the district health authority, but come under the special health authority. I refer to Queen Charlotte's and Hammersmith hospitals. Beds there are not primarily available to local residents. The North West Thames Regional Health Authority's maternity patients flow data show clearly that only a small proportion — about 17 per cent. —of maternity patients at Queen Charlotte's come from Hammersmith and Fulham. Most come from other areas.
There is no catchment area for obstetrics and no priority is given to local patients. Many of my constituents are refused access to Queen Charlotte's hospital. The letter that is sent out states simply:
Your doctor has written to us requesting a booking for your confinement at Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital. We very much regret that during the time of your expected confinement we are fully booked and suggest that you return to your doctor immediately so that alternative arrangements for your confinement can be made.
Letters like that are being sent out in large numbers. According to recent evidence from Professor Elder, 150 applicants a month are turned away by the special health authority. So much for the argument about over-provision.
Furthermore, the argument ignores consumer choice. West London and Queen Charlotte's hospitals are both excellent in their way, but they represent entirely different poles of maternity care provision. The West London hospital has a national reputation for progressive maternity care, for natural child bith and for taking account of the woman's needs and wishes. My three children were born there, so I know of the extraordinary sensitive care that my wife received during her confinements.
The consultation document admits as much. It says:
The West London unit is justly famous. It has been in the forefront of the development of more liberal and sensitive approaches to maternity services and has become known as a leading centre for natural child birth. It is also regarded as a major centre for teaching and research.
That is a tragic comment on the state of the Health Service under this Government. An outstanding maternity unit is threatened with closure without replacement.
The third argument which might be advanced for the closure is that patients can go instead to Westminster hospital. That involves the loss of the West London unit and its tradition of excellence. It will involve a substantial aditional journey for people in my constituency that is

particularly important if their children are in the neo-natal intensive care unit and they have to be on hand to be close to their babies.
The fundamental argument is that even if one of those units has to close because of over-provision, West London certainly should not be chosen. West London is the only unit which satisfies the health authority's criteria for the minimum standards of provision which make the unit viable. The health authority's planners have made it clear that the minimum standard for viability is 2,000 births per year. The West London hospital achieves that, but Westminster does not. Even with the proposed extra provision, Westminster will still have a capacity for only 1,700 deliveries — far below the minimum level for viability. What an extraordinary proposal.
There will be a serious potential impact on Charing Cross hospital and its medical school. The closure of the unit at West London will leave a major teaching hospital without an associatud obstetrics unit. That will create an extraordinary situation and, as the consultation paper admits, it will have a knock-on effect on the gynaecological service. The document states:
Some impact on the existing provision of gynaecology services could result. Any reduction in the level of gynaecology services would have to be the subject of separate formal consultation.
The paper admits that there will be serious potential consequences and that there will have to be further consultation, yet it is still proposed to go ahead with the closure of the West London hospital. That is nonsensical. Furthermore, this could undermine the viability of obstetric teaching at Charing Cross.
Professor Curzon has said that the closure of the West London unit would have drastic consequences. I shall quote from a paper that he wrote earlier this year, which states:
If the West London obstetric unit were to be closed before a definitive solution to the long-term provision of obstetric services had been agreed and implemented, the School's department would have to move to some other temporary site. This would compound the damaging effects of further uncertainties about the future with the considerable turbulence resulting from the move. The only possible sites to which the department could move would be either Westminster Hospital or Queen Charlotte's Hospital. It has already been shown that Westminster Hospital fails to meet the essential criteria of sufficient resources for teaching, and provision of obstetrics and gynaecology on the same site.
A subsequent note from the Professor states that Queen Charlotte's hospital will not take the students in question.
There are all these damaging consequences. The cuts will have an effect on patient care, medical education and related health services. Above all, they will fly in the face of public opinion. When the closure was last proposed, there was generated a massive public reaction. There are many who are associated with the hospital, including patients and nurses in the Public Gallery today to show their concern.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this ill-thought out proposal, which will have damaging consequences. If the Government wish to be taken seriously in their claim that the Health Service is safe in their hands, they must provide more funds to maintain the viability of this hospital.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr.


Raynsford) on what I think is his first Adjournment debate. I am sorry that he rather muddied his advocacy of local interests by making a number of highly party political assertions which he scattered during his speech. I repudiate the simplicity of what he was saying in such a party political context.
The West London hospital is a smallish hospital with fewer than 150 beds providing geriatric, psycho-geriatric, obstetric care, in-patient services and a special care baby unti. There are out-patient clinics, which I know are held in high regard. As the hon. Gentleman said, the building is in a poor state of repair and would require major capital investment to bring it up to a reasonable and acceptable standard. It is rather an isolated unit that is away from the associated specialty and support services that are normally found on a district general hospital site. When the hon. Gentleman was commenting about particular units he said that they could gain by being brought into Charing Cross and being close to the back-up services.
The services that are provided at West London are part of the overall service provision of the Riverside district. The Riverside health authority is responsible for planning services throughout the district and has to ensure that they are provided in a sensible and cost-effective manner.
The subject chosen by the hon. Gentleman for the debate is the future of a particular hospital. I am sure that he will understand that it cannot be considered in isolation. Any reasonable consideration must include services in the district as a whole. At present, the Riverside district is undertaking a review of all its services and it is considering the options for future patterns of services. Its budget last year, 1985–86, was over £120 million, and for 1986–87 it has already increased to over £128 million. There is still the share of the additional £50 million that the Government have made available to meet part of the cost of the pay review body awards. There is, therefore, further money coming to the district. The review which the authority must carry out includes the services provided by all the hospitals in the district and takes account of the changing population. The population of Riverside is declining and it is expected to fall by about 10 per cent. by 1994. Future services will need to reflect that decline. The real cuts that are taking place are in the number of people living in the Riverside area. Furthermore, in Riverside—little mention was made of this—there is a need to develop community services to ensure a better balance between hospital and community provision. While I understand why particular pressure groups home in on specific aspects of more general proposals, I believe it important that balanced judgments are made in proper context.
The overall regional strategy within which the district review is taking place has been generally endorsed by Ministers. The region's main broad strategic aims—the improvement of acute services in some parts of the region and the improvement of priority services throughout the region—are in line with national priorities. The region's overall approach to securing the resources needed to achieve those aims requires, first, the release of resources from local acute services in districts such as Riverside and, secondly, greater efficiency in the provision of these and other services throughout the region.
If, as a result of its planning, the district health authority decides that the closure or change of use of Health Service premises is necessary, there is a formal procedure which it must follow. This is set out in Health

Circular HSC(IS)207. This requires health authorities to consult widely on their plans and to consider all comments that are made. Community health councils must be consulted and are free to put forward counter-proposals. Any such proposals by the CHC must be carefully considered by the health authority alongside the original plans. If the health authority rejects the counter-proposals and reaffirms its original plans, the matter must be referred to the regional health authority. If the RHA supports the DHA's decision the proposal must then be referred to Ministers for a final decision. There is a long consultation process.
I have gone into general issues by way of background in some detail despite what the hon. Gentleman said and what is implied in some comments I have heard, final decisions have not been made about the future of the West London hospital. I understand that today the district will circulate to health authority members its draft — I underline the word "draft" — consultative document. That document is to be considered by the health authority at its next meeting on 24 July. It has not been published. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was quoting from a document. I do not know how that document was obtained. The document, in draft form is going to the health authorities for their consideration. It would he wholly inappropriate for me to comment in detail at this stage. If the DHA decides to go ahead, I shall look forward to hearing the results of the consultation exercise.
The hon. Gentleman referred to obstetric care. I understand his family connections in that respect. I am delighted to join with him in paying tribute to the high reputation that the unit has built up, especially under the leadership of Professor Norman Morris, who I believe retired last year. The unit has an innovative tradition. That is continuing. It is known as a pioneering centre for natural childbirth.
I do not accept the rather artificial destinctions that the hon. Gentleman tried to draw between the various hospitals that serve people in this part of London. Queen Charlotte and Hammersmith hospitals are run by a special health authority, but they bring in a considerable capacity for maternity care in that area, in addition to that provided by the Westminster and West London hospitals.
The latest figures that I have seen—they are for 1984—show that about two out of every five mothers involved came from Riverside. Two out of every five women treated in the obstetric maternity areas of those four hospitals were Riverside mums. Over 5,000 came from outside the area. I am sure that some came from my constituency, because there is a close link between some of the hospitals in Riverside and those in my district of Hownslow and Spelthorne.
A balance must be achieved. It is important that we do not deal with these matters in watertight compartments. Perhaps there was too much of that in the past. It is necessary to look at health care, especially in London, and at the facilities provided by the health authorities and the special health authorities. I note, of course, the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Fulham. I am sure that the health authority will do so also. I am sorry that he was rather narrow in his consideration of these problems and did not take a wider view.
As I have said, at this stage I shall make no comment on the West London hospital. It is for the health authority to come to a decision. It is right that health authorities should be generally free to explore all the options open to


them. They must not be hidebound in their thinking but must consider a wide range of alternatives, even when they may involve radical change. When they have done that, there is a formal consultation process to ensure that the views of those affected are taken into account before final decisions are made. This seems to be the right way to proceed and to ensure the proper plan of future health services to meet the evolving requirements of health care in the district and region concerned. We are concerned not with what existed years ago but with making proper plans for the future provision to deal with patient needs.
I wish that there was more reasonable and balanced consideration of these issues. They are not helped by biased and distorted media coverage of NHS matters. I shall mention one concerned with west London hospitals. Recently the letter page of The London Standard contained a letter headlined "Londoners caught in a red alert". It was said that
the whole of the North West region had been on red alert since March.
The North West region occupies a substantial part of the home counties. The letter was totally untrue.
The administrator of the emergency bed services wrote making the correction that the red alert had lasted not for months but for four days, from 7 to 10 March, yet that letter was hidden away and given little prominence. I wonder whether the original letter was politically motivated and why The London Standard should in this instance, and often in other ways, give prominence to critical stories about the NHS in London, whether they are accurate or not, and ignore or seldom mention new hospital developments and improvements.
The provision of health care for the future and the discussion about it are of immense importance to all concerned. It is right that the hon. Member for Fulham should use the Adjournment debate to raise matters of special concern to his constituents. Having said that, I think that we should discuss them in a sensible and balanced fashion.
I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wishes to bring forward another Adjournment debate. Rather than reply in more detail, I shall sit down to give him that opportunity, although I am rather surprised that he is not in his place.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you help the House? The hon. Baronet, the Member for Linlithgow, (Mr. Dalyell) who is not present, has complained that he has not been given time to pursue by debate his personal campaign against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. You will observe, Sir, that a Minister of the Crown and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are present. A number of hon. Members are here in the hope that we might take part in the debate that the hon. Baronet wished to raise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): These are not matters for me. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has not made any complaint to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minute past Two o'clock.